here - City of Gardendale, AL

Transcription

A REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL
FEASIBILITY TO FORM AN
INDEPENDENT CITY SCHOOL
SYSTEM FOR THE MUNICIPALITY
OF GARDENDALE, ALABAMA
May 14, 2013
Prepared by:
Ira W. Harvey
Decision Resources, LLC
2213 Hunters Cove
Vestavia Hills, Alabama 35216-2413
A REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL
FEASIBILITY TO FORM AN INDEPENDENT
CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR THE
MUNICIPALITY OF GARDENDALE,
ALABAMA
Prepared for
The Mayor and City Council of Gardendale, Alabama
The Honorable Othell Phillips, Mayor
Members of the Council:
Allen Jerkins......................................... District 1
Blake Guinn .......................................... District 2
Alvin Currington ................................... District 3
Greg Colvert ......................................... District 4
Stan Hogeland ...................................... District 5
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations which
provided invaluable assistance in the preparation of this report:
The Mayor, members of the City Council, and staff of the City of Gardendale, especially
the Honorable Mayor Othell Phillips and City Clerk, Mr. Keith A. Mosley;
Gardendale City Councilman, Mr. Alvin Currington;
The Alabama State Department of Education and especially Mr. Craig Pouncey for his
assistance in providing financial and student information;
The Alabama Department of Revenue for providing tax information;
The Jefferson County School Board and its former Superintendent, Dr. Phil Hammonds,
and current Superintendent, Dr. Stephen Nowlin, and its Chief School Finance Officer,
Sheila Jones;
The Office of the Jefferson County Department of Revenue, Mr. Keith B. Crawford, Chief
Accountant, and Mr. Eric Pruitt, Deputy Director;
The Office of the Jefferson County Property Tax Assessor, Mr. John Powe, Chief
Deputy;
The Office of the Jefferson County Board of Equalization, Mr. Robert A. Rogers,
Chairman; and
The Editor of this Report, Ms. Mary Beth Adams, who reviewed and corrected numerous
drafts.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
Chapter
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ iii
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
A.
Laws Governing Public Education In Alabama ........................................................1
B.
Municipal or City Public School Systems in Alabama ..............................................3
2. THE DEMOGRAPHICS AND GOVERNMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
CITY OF GARDENDALE, ALABAMA .............................................................................13
A.
Demographics of the City of Gardendale ..............................................................13
B.
Student Enrollment in the School Sites in Gardendale ..........................................22
C.
Taxes Levied and Collected in the City of Gardendale ..........................................36
D.
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................40
3. STATE FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ALABAMA: TYPES OF
STATE SCHOOL AID FORMULAS .................................................................................42
A.
The 1995 Foundation Program Allocations ...........................................................42
B.
State Categorical Aid Programs ............................................................................55
C.
Line Item Appropriations for Local Boards of Education ........................................60
4. JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM TAXES FOR PUBLIC
SCHOOLS ......................................................................................................................63
A.
General Laws for Countywide Taxes for School Systems .....................................63
B.
Special Ad Valorem Taxes for the Jefferson County School System .....................66
C.
Summary of Ad Valorem Taxes Authorized for the Jefferson County
School System ......................................................................................................68
D.
County and Municipal Excise, Franchise, and Privilege License Taxes
for Jefferson County School System .....................................................................70
E.
Summary of Jefferson County School System Ad Valorem Taxes
for Schools for FY 2012-13 ...................................................................................74
F.
Jefferson County School System Total Local Revenues for Schools ....................75
G.
Expiration of Existing Ad Valorem Taxes for the Jefferson County School
System and City System(s) of Jefferson County ...................................................84
5. FINANCING THE PROPOSED GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM ......................86
A.
Endowments of Jefferson County School System in the City of Gardendale .........86
B.
Proposed Gardendale City School System Local Tax Based Revenues
For FY 2012-13 .....................................................................................................86
C.
Proposed Gardendale City School System State Revenues for
FY 2012-13 .........................................................................................................101
D.
Proposed Gardendale City School System Federal Revenues for
FY 2012-13 .........................................................................................................106
E.
Proposed Gardendale City School System Total Revenues for
FY 2012-13 .........................................................................................................108
iv
F.
G.
Existing Debt to be Assumed by the Proposed Gardendale City
School System for FY 2012-13 ...........................................................................113
Financing the Student Transportation Program by the Proposed
Gardendale City School System for FY 2012-13 .................................................117
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................120
A.
Proposed Revenues and Expenditures ...............................................................120
B.
Conclusions Regarding Revenues Available .......................................................124
C.
Revenue Options for Consideration ....................................................................125
D.
Options for Additional Tax Revenues ..................................................................126
E.
Forward Funding of Proposed Gardendale City School System
Administration and Operations ............................................................................128
7. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................131
7-1
Per Capita Income and Rank by County in Alabama in 2010 Current Dollars .......133
7-2
Rank of Places in Alabama by Per Capita Income Adjusted for Inflation
and Also by Places in Alabama with City School Systems in Alabama, 2009 .......134
7-3
Act of the Legislature No. 203, Approved February 7, 1891 .................................135
7-4
Section 269, Constitution of 1901 as Amended ....................................................138
7-5
Amendment 3, Constitution of 1901 as Amended: Statewide Application
3.0 Mill Countywide and 3.0 Mill School Tax District Ad Valorem Tax...................139
7-6
Amendment 82, Constitution of 1901 as Amended: Jefferson County
Consolidation School Tax Amendment .................................................................140
7-7
Amendment 175. Constitution of 1901 as Amended: Special District
Tax for Furtherance of Education in Jefferson County ..........................................141
7-8
Amendment 382, Constitution of 1901 as Amended: Statewide 3.0 Mill School
Tax District Ad Valorem Tax .................................................................................142
7-9
Calculation of Yield per Mill per ADM for County School Systems
for FY 2012-13 ...................................................................................................143
7-10 Calculation of Yield per Mill per ADM for City School Systems
for FY 2012-13 ...................................................................................................144
7-11 Tax Capacity and Tax Effort for County School Systems
for FY 2012-13 ....................................................................................................145
7-12 Tax Capacity and Tax Effort for City School Systems
for FY 2012-13 ....................................................................................................146
7-13 Capital Purchase Allocation from the Public School Fund for
County School Systems for FY 2012-13 ...............................................................147
v
7-14 Capital Purchase Allocation from the Public School Fund for
City School Systems for FY 2012-13 ....................................................................148
7-15 Unrestricted Local Tax Revenues per ADM for County School Systems
for FY 2012-13 .....................................................................................................149
7-16 Unrestricted Local Tax Revenues per ADM for City School Systems
for FY 2012-13 .....................................................................................................150
7-17 Gardendale Elementary School Site Summary Report .........................................151
7-18 Gardendale Elementary School Site Building Detail Facilities Summary ..............152
7-19 Snow Rogers Elementary School Site Summary ..................................................157
7-20 Snow Rogers Elementary School Site Building Detail Facilities Summary ............158
7-21 Bragg Middle School Site Summary .....................................................................161
7-22 Bragg Middle School Site Building Detail Facilities Summary ...............................162
7-23 Gardendale High School Site Summary ...............................................................164
7-24 Gardendale High School Building Detail Facilities Summary ................................165
7-25 Mount Olive Elementary School Site Summary ....................................................168
7-26 Mount Olive Elementary School Site Building Detail Facilities Summary ..............169
7-27 Gardendale Elementary School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for
FY 2012-13 Budget .............................................................................................171
7-28 Snow Rogers Elementary School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for
FY 2012-13 Budget .............................................................................................172
7-29 Bragg Middle School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for FY 2012-13 Budget ...............173
7-30 Gardendale High School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for
FY 2012-13 Budget .............................................................................................174
7-31 Mount Olive Elementary School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for
FY 2012-13 Budget ............................................................................................175
7-32 Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio for the School Systems of
Jefferson County for FY 2012-13..........................................................................176
7-33 Letter from Dr. Wayne Teague, State Superintendent of Education,
Regarding Formation of a City School System .....................................................177
7-34 Student Transportation Equipment Serving the School Sites of Gardendale ........180
vi
7-35 Jefferson County School System APSCA Pooled Purchase Bond Issue 1999-D
Refunded in 2009-B Debt to be Assumed by Proposed Gardendale City School
System .................................................................................................................181
7-36 Jefferson County Limited Obligation School Series 2000 Warrant Issue Debt
to be Assumed by Proposed Gardendale City School System..............................182
7-37 Jefferson County 2004 and 2005 Combined Debt Service Series 2004A,
Series 2005A and 2005B School Warrants ..........................................................183
vii
1.
INTRODUCTION
A. LAWS GOVERNING PUBLIC EDUCATION IN ALABAMA
Laws governing the creation of school systems in Alabama were constructed in most
part in the period just after the approval of the Constitution of 1901. The first significant
codification of these laws occurred in 1911. Thus the basic format and structure of school
systems in Alabama were created prior to the approval of Amendment 3 in 1916 (authorized
local referenda on countywide and newly created school tax district ad valorem taxes for
schools). Then, as today, only two types of school systems were recognized: countywide and
municipal or city. No variation is permitted. The area inside the political boundary of a
municipality is a municipal school system; the area outside the political boundary of a
municipality with separate city school systems belongs to a county school system.
Given the rural and agrarian nature of the State in the early decades of the twentieth
century, few could have contemplated municipalities straddling not just two, but three and
potentially four counties. School townships were logical operating units within a county given
geographic and economic isolation centered upon the 16th section of each township. The
organization that was established to replace township schools in 1903 was the creation of
separate school districts centered on population centers and governmental entities as
determined by the county board of education. These areas could become tax districts under
Amendment 3, and the authority, upon a referendum, for earmarked school tax district ad
valorem taxes was provided. However, operational authority remained concentrated in the
county board of education, and school tax district ad valorem taxes were levied and collected by
the county commission. This was the mechanism for funding schools within a community; also
provided for were local school trustees to enhance the symbolism of local community control. In
addition, provisions were provided for local attendance zones within the county which are
exclusive of cities.
Lawmakers did contemplate that as municipalities gained in population, it was a logical
step that such municipalities would become a separate school system from the county school
system and be administered by its own board. In addition, the legislature approved and the
people of the State ratified a Constitutional Amendment (Amendment III) which created school
tax districts to be drawn by the county board of education. The purpose of this was to allow
citizens of a county not in a municipality of 2,500 population to form a tax district and levy and
collect additional ad valorem taxes for be expended only for the benefit of the school children of
that tax district. This would occur even though the schools were still county schools and
administered by the county. The importance of Amendment III was the statement of the intent
of the legislature and the people of the state to provide for a political subdivision, whether a city
school system (a school tax district) or a school tax district, to provide additional tax revenues
for the educational benefit of schoolchildren if the voters of that tax district would approve the
additional levy and collection in a referendum.
Today, the statutory population threshold for a municipality to create its own municipal
school system is 5,000 residents. Such a creation has been held by the Federal Court in Lee v.
Chambers County Board of Education as not only a right, but an obligation by the city to control
and operate the schools within its boundaries as the federal judiciary reviewed the creation of a
city school system by the city of Valley, Alabama:
1
The City of Valley undeniably has not only a right, but an obligation under state statute to
control and operate the schools within its boundaries unless it enters into an agreement with the
Chambers County Board of Education for its schools under control of the county board (Lee v.
Chambers County Bd. of Educ., 849 F. Supp. 1474 (M.D. Ala. 1994)).
The Court further held that transfer of control of public schools from an elected county board of
education to an appointed city board of education required federal pre-clearance pursuant to the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 when the county board of education was operating under an
existing desegregation order. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 created the test that must be
applied:
We have today held that any attempt by state or local officials to carve out a new school district
from an existing district that is in the process of dismantling a dual school system “must be judged
according to whether it hinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposal
would impede the dismantling of a dual system, then a district court, in the exercise of its remedial
discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.” (Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U.S.
451, 460).
Alabama’s Statewide System of Public Schools
Alabama’s statewide system of public schools began with the Public Education Act of
1854, modeled on the schools of Mobile County. This Act laid the framework which is still
largely in place for the operation of public schools in Alabama. The statewide system was
based upon the county unit of government which was an arm of the State government. All
counties were required to operate a county school system, and one mill of ad valorem tax was
authorized for their operation. In addition to providing for three commissioners of free public
schools at the county level, the 1854 Act created the position of trustees of public schools in the
townships and provided for their election. These trustees were granted the immediate
supervision of schools, including the hiring and firing of teachers. These were virtually township
school systems.
In 1903, the State abolished townships for the purposes of operating public schools and placed
control in the county board of education. However, the township concept was retained for the
administration of the original sixteenth section federal land grants and the crediting of their
revenues. In addition, State laws still provide permission for counties to appoint for each school
in the county six school trustees to look after the general interests of the school and to report to
the county board of education (Code of Alabama 1975, Sections 16-10-1 to 16-10-11).
County Public School Systems Required
The county system of schools is required in current law as follows:
§ 16-8-8. Administration and supervision of schools generally.
The general administration and supervision of the public schools of the educational
interests of each county, with the exception of cities having a city board of education, shall be
vested in the county board of education; provided, that such general administration and supervision
of any city having a city board of education may be consolidated with the administration and control
of educational matters affecting the county and vested in the county board of education (Code of
Alabama 1975, Section 16-8-8).
Furthermore, the school code provides for the county board of education to establish
both school tax districts and school attendance districts within the county as in the School Code
of 1911. The authorization for the creation of school tax districts follows:
2
§ 16-13-191. School tax district — Boundaries fixed by county board.
In order to make it possible to work out a system of local tax units adapted to the needs of
the whole county, the county board of education of its own initiative shall fix the boundaries of any
school tax district within its jurisdiction in which it is proposed to levy a local school tax. In making
application for a special election in any such district, the county board of education shall submit a
map made by the county surveyor, or other competent person, showing the boundaries of the
school tax district for which a special tax levy is proposed, indicating the section or sections and
ranges, together with the correct description of the boundaries of the said district for which a
special tax levy is proposed for education (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-191).
The applicability of statutes regarding school tax districts applies directly to Jefferson County,
with twelve school systems and multiple school ad valorem tax districts.
A county board of education is empowered to make administrative decisions as to where
any and all school children of the county school system shall attend school. Statutory
provisions for the creation of school attendance districts follow:
§ 16-28-19. Attendance districts.
The county board of education shall arrange the county, exclusive of cities, into one or
more attendance districts, and said board shall appoint an attendance officer for every district
created, who shall hold his office at the will of the county board of education, and the board of
education of each city having a city board of education shall appoint one or more attendance
officers to serve at the pleasure of the appointing board. City and county boards of education and
county commissions may jointly employ any person or persons to carry out the provisions of this
chapter and such additional duties as may be assigned them by such boards or county
commissions (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-28-19).
B. MUNICIPAL OR CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN ALABAMA
The School Code of Alabama since first compiled in 1911, has not only anticipated the
creation of municipal public school systems, it has required them unless proactive steps are
taken. First, a definition of city is needed:
§ 16-11-1. "City" defined.
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 11-47-90 through 11-47-95
(Code of Alabama 1975, 16-11-1).
The Code of Alabama in Sections 11-47-90 through 11-47-95 (Article 3, Title 11) provides the
procedure for obtaining an official census. With the definition of a “city” meaning municipalities
with a population of 5,000 or more, the entitlement for the creation of a municipal school system
is created:
§ 16-13-199. Municipality may remain under county board of education; disposition of tax
when city assumes control of schools.
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 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
3
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 shall be paid over to the custodian of city school funds, 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 (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-199).
Control of City Schools and Taxation
The Attorney General has reviewed this statute and in an Opinion of the Attorney
General dated March 30, 1990, has concluded that “the Legislature intends for the city board of
education to have authority over schools within the city. When authority over a certain area is
transferred from a county board of education to a city board of education, the taxes that are
already levied therein are automatically paid to the city school system without the necessity of
a new election regarding said taxes in the district, as is required for the initial levy by § 16-13180, et. seq., Code of Alabama 1975. Although the transfer of authority addressed in this
statute is occasioned by the city reaching a population of 5,000, the same results should follow
where the transfer of authority is occasioned by the city’s annexation of new territory (Opinion of
the Attorney General, Number 90-00201).” See also Opinion of the Attorney General, Number
86-00301.
General state law further stipulates that the city school system comprises a school tax
district whose boundaries are that of the municipality. Since the boundaries are the same for
both political units, there is no need for separate maps to be provided:
§ 16-13-193. School tax district — Map — Not required of city school tax district.
Any city having a city board of education shall constitute an independent school tax district
for the purpose of levying the tax authorized under this article, but it shall not be necessary for the
city board of education when making application or request for a special election under the
provisions of this article to submit the map or the description of boundaries (Code of Alabama
1975, Section 16-13-193).
Clearly the attendance district and school tax district for a city board of education is defined as
the boundary of the municipality itself. Furthermore, the State Superintendent of Education has
historically concluded that the county board of education shall under the implementation of
Section 16-13-199, Code of Alabama 1975, transfer control of buildings, grounds, equipment,
textbooks, materials, and supplies to the newly formed city board of education (see Appendix
7-33 for the letter to the Federal Court outlining transfer of property). The new city board of
education would have authority over students residing in the city and would be entitled to
ownership of all school transportation equipment serving the school sites located in the City of
Jefferson. (Lee v. Chambers County Bd. of Educ., 849 F. Supp. 1474 (M.D. Ala. 1994)).
The issue of the control and title to school property is addressed in three situations when
a city board of education begins and operates as a separate city school system. (1) The first of
these situations occurs when a city council passes a resolution to form a new city school system
in accordance with the provisions of § 16-13-199 previously stated. The newly formed city
school system receives the school property of the county located within the city boundaries
without cost to the newly formed city board of education. However, debt which has been
created by the parent county board of education due to the sale of revenue warrants and for
which proceeds have been used for capital outlay at school sites (purchase of land, buildings,
4
construction costs, renovation, but not routine maintenance) of the city constitute a debt to be
assumed by the new city board of education as follows:
§ 16-13-90 Purposes for which warrants issued.
In any county in which a special county tax shall have been voted under the constitution
for such purpose or for school purposes generally, and in any school district in which a special
district tax shall have been voted under the constitution for such purpose or for school purposes
generally, the county board of education or the city board of education, as the case may be, with
the approval of the State Superintendent of Education may issue and sell capital outlay warrants for
the purposes of erecting, purchasing, altering, enlarging, improving, repairing and equipping school
buildings and school playgrounds, and buildings for housing and repairing school buses, including
sites for any such buildings and playgrounds; and for the purpose of purchasing school buses; and
for the purpose of acquiring a school building already erected by another government body, which
building is being transferred to the use and jurisdiction of the board issuing the warrants; or for any
one or more of such purposes; issue and sell or exchange refunding warrants for the purpose of
refunding any valid warrants heretofore or hereafter issued and constituting a preferred claim
against the said tax, or, in the case of refunding warrants payable from the tax of a special school
district which consists of a consolidation of two or more smaller special school districts, constituting
a preferred claim against the tax of any of such smaller districts; provided, that the refunding
warrants shall not be issued in an aggregate principal amount exceeding the sum of (i) the
outstanding principal of such warrants being refunded … (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-1390).
In another aspect of this same case, the Court ruled that there is no authorization under
Alabama law for a city school system to include territory beyond the city limits: “The court finds
no such authorization, other than through a court-ordered desegregation plan.
(2) The second of these situations occurs when a city council of a city having a separate
city board of education wishes to annex property belonging to a county board of education upon
which school property is located. In this situation, assumption must be made of existing
indebtedness and provisions made to reimburse the county board of education for the loss of
the educational facility:
§ 16-8-20: Annexing to city territory embracing schools - Retention of control pending
agreements.
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 council or 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
school district or districts not annexed or made a part of such city (Code of Alabama 1975, Section
16-8-20).
(3) The third situation that can exist is when a there is a proposal to merge a portion or
all of a county school tax district with a city school system tax district. In this case and in the
case of annexation, state law does provide a way:
§ 16-13-195. School tax district — Consolidation — City district with other territory.
When it shall seem desirable to consolidate with a city school tax district having a city
board of education, either a county school tax district or territory adjacent to such city school tax
5
district which does not lie within the corporate limits of the city, so as to vest the control of
educational matters of such proposed consolidated school tax district in said city board of
education, the county board of education and city board of education shall agree upon the terms of
consolidation and concurrently request the county commission to call an election in all the territory
proposed to be consolidated to determine whether such school tax district or territory adjacent to
said city school tax district should be consolidated with the city school tax district and the
educational affairs of all the territory proposed to be consolidated placed under the control of the
city board of education of such city, and whether or not a special tax for a uniform rate and time
shall be voted for such proposed school tax district. In the event of such consolidation, the rate and
time of the three-mill district tax, if levied, shall be for such time as prescribed in the agreement
between the boards; provided, that the rate and time shall not be less than the maximum rate and
the maximum time of any such district or territory included in said consolidation (Code of Alabama
1975, Section 16-13-195).
The implementation of this statute is dependent upon the mutual agreement of the two boards
of education involved and upon a referendum in the affected area:
§ 16-13-196. School tax district - Consolidation - Effect.
Thereupon the county commission shall call an election in like manner as already
prescribed for calling an election in a school tax district in the special districts or district and
adjacent territory proposed to be consolidated, and if a majority of the qualified electors voting in
the combined territories of the districts or district and adjacent territory proposed to be consolidated
shall vote favorably, the districts or district and adjacent territory shall be consolidated into a new
special school tax district, and the tax as voted shall be levied and collected in the new district as a
unit, but the creation of a new district shall not operate to relieve the county board of education of
liability for the just obligations made prior to such consolidation. In the event a majority of the
qualified electors voting in the combined territories of the districts or district and adjacent territory
proposed to be consolidated shall vote against the proposed consolidation, said consolidation shall
not be made and each district shall remain as before with the same taxing privileges (Code of
Who May Attend a City School System?
There have been several statutes passed by the Legislature of Alabama pertaining to
issues of who may attend a school site in which school system. The general conclusion is that
the determination is at the discretion of the local board of education. The Legislature has
addressed the authority of a city board of education to determine eligibility requirements for
attendance even though some separate statues appear to offer conflicting interpretations of the
eligibility of certain students to attend a city school system:
§ 16-11-16. Kindergartens and playgrounds; eligibility for admission to public schools.
(a) The city board of education shall have power to establish and maintain a system of
public schools including kindergartens and playgrounds for the benefit of children who are bona
fide residents of and living within the corporate limits of such city.
(b) Such children who are six years of age and less than 19 years of age on the date
school opens shall be entitled to admission to the elementary, junior and senior high schools.
(c) If a kindergarten is established and maintained, children from five to eight years of age
may be admitted on such terms and conditions as the city board of education may prescribe (Code
of Alabama 1975, Section 16-11-16).
An Opinion of the State Attorney General dated April 24, 2003, has concluded that this
Section 16-11-16 means that city boards of education have the power to establish a system of
public schools for the benefit of children only who are bona fide residents of and living within
the corporate limits of such city (Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 2003-133). However,
6
other interpretations of other statues open the door for non-resident attendance and have
concluded that city boards of education may have an open enrollment policy.
The most recent statute addressing this issue is the following as amended in 2012:
§ 6-28-3: Ages of children required to attend school; exemption for church school students.
Every child between the ages of six and 17 years shall be required to attend a public
school, private school, church school, or be instructed by a competent private tutor for the entire
length of the school term in every scholastic year except that, prior to attaining his or her 16th
birthday every child attending a church school as defined in Section 16-28-1 is exempt from the
requirements of this section, provided such child complies with enrollment and reporting procedure
specified in Section 16-28-7. Admission to public school shall be on an individual basis on the
application of the parents, legal custodian, or guardian of the child to the local board of education at
the beginning of each school year, under such rules and regulations as the board may prescribe.
The parent, legal custodian, or guardian of a child who is six years of age, may opt out of enrolling
their child in school at the age of six years by notifying the local school board of education, in
writing, that the child will not be enrolled in school until he or she is seven years of age (Code of
This statute may well override any previous limitation as may have been placed in law by the
interpretation of this Opinion of the Attorney General:
By the provisions of Section 16-28-3, the Legislature has authorized local boards of
education to regulate the admission of students into their schools. There is no statute expressly
prohibiting children who live within a city with a city school system from attending county schools.
Reading this in conjunction with Section 16-10-6 which expressly provides for the collection of fees
from elementary students attending schools in a jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction of the
students’ residences, children living within city limits of a city school system are not statutorily
prohibited from attending county schools (Phenix City Bd. of Educ. v. Teague, 515 So. 2d 971).
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has ruled that this section –- §16-28-4 -– creates an
entitlement to education in this state for children under the age of 16 (Hoover Bd. of Educ., 594 So.
2d 148).
Joint Operation by Two Boards of a School Site
Due to the rural nature of the State of Alabama, it has long been recognized that there
may be a necessity because of geography and demographics to provide for a joint maintenance
by two counties of a school located near a county line. Further provisions were made for the
attendance of students from two counties in this school:
§ 16-8-18. Joint maintenance of schools — Between counties; attendance by pupils near
county lines.
The county boards of education of two or more counties shall have power to provide jointly
for the maintenance of schools in or near the dividing line of such counties on the basis of the
enrollment in such school from the counties represented. Each pupil who lives within five miles of a
county boundary line shall attend the school nearest to his residence. The administration and
supervision of such school shall be placed under one of the county boards of education of said
counties by agreement between the county boards of education, and if no agreement as to
administration and supervision is made, it shall be under the board of education of the county in
which the schoolhouse is located (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-8-18).
An Opinion of the Attorney General in 1979 offered additional clarification to the language of the
statute:
Specifically the Legislature provided that board (sic) of education in adjoining school districts may
enter into agreements to jointly maintain (provide financial support) for schools on or near a county
7
line. The agreement should by statute recognize which of the two jurisdictions will be responsible
for the administration and supervision of such schools. Once such an agreement is established,
children who live within five miles of the county boundary line shall attend the school closest to his
residence (Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 79-00339).
The mechanism is set in place for financial support of the jointly maintained school. If no
Section 16-8-18 agreement is established, one school board may not bill another school board
for costs of out-of-district residents. However, the Office of Attorney General encourages the
use of the Section 16-8-18 agreement for joint maintenance of county line schools for the
purposes of providing free public education for children at the school closest to their residence
(Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 79-00339). Thus students in one county may attend
school in another county. The important aspect of this ruling is that local boards may make
attendance decisions. Further Opinions have emphasized the necessity of written agreements
between boards of education and the right for financial compensation to be made between the
respective boards as an intergovernmental transfer payment (joint financial support).
In 1964, the Alabama Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the above
statute entitled a child to attend the school of his choice closest to his home no matter in which
county the school is located as long as the child lived within five miles of the county line. The
Court concluded that no such right was created within the statute. Such a right to attend the
closest school without paying tuition exists only when there was an agreement between the two
county school systems involved. Without such an agreement, there is no right to attend with or
without tuition (Conech County Board of Education v. Campbell, 276 Ala. 343, 162 So. 2d 233,
1964).
In an Opinion of the Attorney General written in 1985, this conclusion was further
restated that without an agreement, no entitlement exists irrespective of the distance involved
(Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 85-00147). The obvious conclusion is that without an
agreement, there can be no joint financial support and no assumption of cost by the county from
which the student actually resides. Without such agreement, one school board may not bill
another school board for out-of-district residents (Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 7900330).
Composition of the New City Board of Education
A newly formed city board of education shall by law consist of five members who shall
be appointed by the city council:
§ 16-11-2: Applicability; composition of boards.
(a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to city boards of education unless otherwise
provided by local law pursuant to Amendment 659 to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, or any
other provision of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.
(b) The general administration and supervision of the public schools and educational
interest of each city shall be vested in a city 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 council or commission.
In any Class 4 municipality which has adopted a mayor-council form of government pursuant to
Chapter 43B (commencing with Section 11-43B-1) of Title 11, the city board of education may be
composed of seven members.
(c) No person shall be eligible for election or appointment as a member of a city board of
education unless he or she satisfies all of the following qualifications:
(1) Is a person of good moral character.
8
(2) Has obtained a high school diploma or its equivalent.
(3) Is not employed by that city board of education.
(4) Is not serving on the governing board of a private elementary or secondary
educational institution.
(5) Is not on the National Sex Offender Registry or the state sex offender registry.
(6) Has not been convicted of a felony.
(d) In those cities where the members of the city board of education are elected or
appointed to represent a district, whenever a member of a city board of education moves his or her
domicile from the district he or she represents, he or she shall cease to be a member of the city
board of education, and a vacancy shall occur. The member shall provide notice of the move to the
secretary of the city board of education before the beginning of business at the first meeting of the
city board of education following the move (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-11-2).
The members of the city board of education are to be appointed by the city council on a
staggered basis:
§ 16-11-3: Election; terms of office; vacancies.
Annually at the regular meetings of the city council or commission in April the council or
commission shall elect a member or members of the board of education to succeed those whose
term or terms of office expire that year. Members of the city board of education shall assume office
at the next regular meeting of the city board of education in June following their appointment. The
terms of office of members of the city board of education shall be five years, and the term of one
member shall expire annually. A member shall serve on the board until his or her successor
assumes office. In the event of a vacancy in the membership of the city board of education by
resignation or otherwise, the fact shall be reported to the city council or commission by the board,
and the council or commission shall elect a person to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term (Code
Authority of City School Board to Set Attendance Policies
The city board of education when formed is responsible for providing the educational
opportunities and services prescribed by state law and Alabama State Board of Education rules
and regulations to all children of school age who are residents of the municipality. However, as
previously discussed, flexibility is granted to a city board of education to make rational
determinations as to which students residing outside the political boundaries of the municipality
may attend the city school system. Additionally, the city board of education is empowered to
contract with the county board of education for educational services. While flexibility is granted
to accept non-resident (out of system) students, state statute guarantees acceptance of resident
students and educational opportunities provided based upon individual educational needs.
Similar Authority Granted to County School Systems
Further authority is granted the county superintendent to determine conditions of school
admission:
§ 16-9-19. Conditions of admittance to high schools.
The county superintendent of education, subject to the provisions of this title, shall prepare
and submit for approval and adoption by the county board of education rules and regulations
governing the conditions under which children may be admitted to junior and senior high schools of
the county (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-9-19).
The Attorney General has ruled a county superintendent does have the authority to determine
the conditions under which non-resident students (of the county or the State) may still be
9
allowed to attend the junior and senior high schools of the county. These conditions are, of
course, subject to board approval (Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 87-00033).
Furthermore, the Opinion further validates the authority of the boards of education receiving
non-resident students to charge a tuition fee for this privilege which is found in the following
statutory provision:
§ 16-10-6. Incidental fees in elementary schools.
No fees of any kind shall be collected from children attending any of the first six grades
during the school term supported by public taxation; provided, that any county or city board of
education shall be authorized to permit any school subject to its supervision to solicit and receive
from such children or their parents or guardians voluntary contributions to be used for school
purposes by the school where such children are attending; provided further, that the provisions of
this section shall in no way affect or restrict the right or power of a school board to fix and collect
tuition fees or charges from pupils attending schools under the jurisdiction of such board but who
live outside the territory over which such board has jurisdiction (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 1610-6).
This language opens the door for two opportunities. One is for each type of school system to
determine who can attend that public school system. The second is that the local board of
education is free to charge tuition fees or charges from non-resident students of that school
system. This creates the reality of an open enrollment policy.
An Opinion of the Attorney General has addressed the amount of tuition which should be
charged:
. . . . . the Legislature intended to recognize the right or power of a school board to fix and collect
tuition fees or charges from pupils attending schools under their jurisdiction but who live outside the
territory over which the board has jurisdiction. However, local boards of education are not
authorized to charge unlimited fees or tuition under the above-discussed circumstances. It is our
opinion that a local board of education may charge and require a pupil who lives outside its
jurisdiction, to pay a tuition fee not to exceed the sum of the local tax effort devoted to school
purposes divided by the number of students attending school within the jurisdiction of the board. In
other words, the amount of tuition that may be charged is limited by the amount of local financial
support a school system receives (Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 79-00339).
This conclusion was repeated three years later:
In our opinion to Dr. Wayne Teague, released August 17, 1979, we expressed our opinion
that the Legislature by this statute, intended to recognize the right of a school board to collect
tuition fees from students attending schools in one school board jurisdiction while living in another
area. We are enclosing a copy of that opinion for your consideration. We also call your attention to
that portion of the opinion which points out that the tuition charged should not exceed the sum of
the local tax effort devoted to school purposes divided by the number of students attending
(Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 82-00413).
Expenditure of Funds by City for Benefit of Individuals Illegal
A city has authority to expend funds for any legal purposes, and a city with a city board
of education has the authority to expend funds for any legal educational purpose. In the case
presented by the City of Madison regarding students who lived within the city limits but in a
portion of the City of Madison which is located within Limestone County rather than Madison
County, the question was raised as to whether the City of Madison could pay on behalf of these
students a $600 tuition fee charged by Madison County to out-of-county residents. This would
amount to the City paying a fee on behalf of selected individual residents of the City.
10
In 1994, an Opinion of the Attorney General dated October 20, 1993, held that such
expenditure by a city to a county board of education must be made as a budgetary appropriation
(intergovernmental transfer) and cannot be made as payment of tuition or fees for an individual
student. The Alabama Constitution of 1901 in Section 94 as amended by Amendment 112
prohibits any city or town from granting public money in aid of any individual. Therefore, the
paying of fees or tuition for an individual student is prohibited:
The legislature shall not have power to authorize any county, city, town, or other
subdivision of this state to lend its credit, or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to
any individual, association, or corporation whatsoever, or to become a stockholder in any such
corporation, association, or company, by issuing bonds or otherwise. It is provided, however, that
the legislature may enact general, special, or local laws authorizing political subdivisions and public
bodies to alienate, with or without a valuable consideration, public parks and playgrounds, or other
public recreational facilities and public housing projects, conditional upon the approval of a majority
of the duly qualified electors of the county, city, town, or other subdivision affected thereby, voting
at an election held for such purpose (Constitution of 1901, Amendment 112).
Thus in the case of a city which spans two counties, the students who reside in the
county which is the minority portion of the city may attend the county school system of the
county which comprises the majority portion of the city. However, the students must pay a
tuition fee as determined by the county board of education receiving the out-of-county students
(Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 94-00016). A county board of education has the sole
discretion to admit students who lived within a municipal school system.
There is no question concerning the legality of appropriation of funds to local boards of
education for educational purposes:
§ 16-13-36. Appropriation of funds out of treasury.
Any appropriate local governing body is authorized at any meeting of said governing body
in any calendar year to appropriate any funds it may deem proper and expedient out of the general
funds of the governing body's treasury to local boards of education for the construction, repair,
operation, maintenance and support of new or existing public schools within the jurisdiction of said
governing body (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-36).
It must be assumed that this refers both to city and county governing bodies since the
statute was amended in 1995 to replace "county commissions of the State" with the term “local
governing body.” However, it is uncertain as to whether the jurisdictional issue can be
construed to appropriations by a city governing body to a board of education for schools not
located within the city jurisdiction.
The appropriation of funds by the City Council to the city's school system is not an
unusual event in Alabama, while somewhat rare for a county commission. County Commission
appropriations have budgeted for FY 2012-13 a total of $1,969,251 to their respective city and
county school systems. City councils have budgeted the sum of $67,103,373 for city school
systems. These amounts have decreased dramatically over the past few years, and local
governing bodies have been struggling to balance their own revenues and expenditures.
Such appropriations can be from general revenues or from the dedication of a specific
tax levy – ad valorem, franchise, excise, or privilege license tax – for the city school system. If
such a dedicated tax is levied and collected (with the exception of those under the authority
of §40-12-4) it is not a school tax but is a tax for schools. This distinction will be discussed in
a following Chapter. Of course a school system would more highly value dedicated tax revenue
11
which can be budgeted annually rather than a varying appropriation from general revenues
which can easily disappear from the budget.
The most important conclusion on taxes differentiated by authority for levy and collection
is as follows. A school tax will not be paid to the newly formed city board of education until final
fiscal separation from the parent county board of education has been concluded by contractual
agreement with the respective county board of education. Therefore, the newly formed board
of education does not have either access to or authority over these tax revenues possibility until
the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1) of the academic year (July 1) in which final
separation is concluded. There are no fiscal resources available to assume the costs of
separation as school taxes and revenues. In fact, there is the necessity to forward fund the
period from July 1 until the first state warrants are received no later than October 31.
Fortunately, a municipal tax can be appropriated to the newly formed city board of
education at any time post their appointment in accordance with a resolution of formation being
approved by the city council. This newly formed board, prior to final separation, does have legal
authority to accept the appropriation and to expend those revenues for any legitimate purpose
of board activity, including the attendance at professional or association meetings and for the
hiring of personnel. Therefore, the ideal situation is for a municipality to exercise their taxing
authority (usually by an additional sales/use tax) to support the activities of the newly formed
city board of education and to provide adequate resources for transition costs and perhaps
enhanced educational experiences in the newly formed city school system.
12
2. THE DEMOGRAPHICS
AND GOVERNMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE CITY OF GARDENDALE, ALABAMA
A. DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE CITY OF GARDENDALE
The City of Gardendale is one of several municipalities in Jefferson County along the old
main transportation corridor created by Highway 31 north of Birmingham, but bypassed by the
final construction of Interstate 65 from Birmingham north to the Tennessee state line. Before
Interstate 65 was constructed, the main route between Nashville, Tennessee and Birmingham,
Alabama was U.S. Route 31. Interstate 65, on the western edge of the city, was completed in
1985 and has stimulated commercial growth. The community began after Andrew Jackson
defeated the Creek Nation at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814; the subsequent Treaty of
Fort Jackson and other treaties that followed ceded Indian land that made up most of what is
now Alabama. Abraham Stout was commissioned to build a public road in 1822-1823 from
Gandy’s Cove (in Cataco/Morgan County) to Elyton. He closely followed the old Indian trails for
the Route, which came directly through what is now Gardendale.
Gardendale
Figure 2-1
The early settlers of this area, most of them veterans of the War of 1812, recognized the
beautiful woodlands as a productive area. The growing settlement was first called Jugtown after
a jug and a churn factory operated near where the Village Green shopping center is located
today. However, this named proved to be embarrassing to a local school teacher, Hettie
Thomason Cargo, and she began a drive to have the town renamed. "Gardendale" was chosen
in 1906.
13
At the turn of the 20th century, many people who worked in and around Birmingham
moved to Gardendale from some of the northern counties of the state. The population
continued to increase and the area greatly expanded as a result of both World War I and World
War II. Gardendale was incorporated and became a city in 1955. Mr. J. I. Pesnell was elected
as the first Mayor. Gardendale now has a land area of 57 square miles and boasts
approximately 470 businesses, 5 public schools (including Mount Olive Elementary outside the
current city limits), 2 private schools and more than 25 churches within the city limits. The
population is around 14,000. A Chamber of Commerce was organized in 1987 and has
influenced the city's development as its membership has grown. Since 1980, Gardendale has
annexed considerable amounts of land on the north, east, and west sides. Much of the eastern
area is uninhabited. The western annexation is centered along Fieldstown Road. Most of the
newest residential development has been in this area and along Shady Grove Road south of
Fieldstown Road. The northern annexation has centered along US 31 and extends nearly 2
miles (3.2 km) farther north than in 1980. This growth in population and economic development
has prompted city officials to consider the feasibility of creating its own the City of Gardendale
School System as many other cities in Jefferson County have already done.
The students residing in the City of Gardendale attend the public schools of Jefferson
County. The Jefferson County Public School System is the second largest in Alabama with a
student enrollment in excess of 36,000. Only the Mobile County School System is larger with
enrollment in excess of 60,000. Jefferson County currently is composed of one county school
system and eleven city school systems as shown below:
Table 2-1
TOTAL STUDENT POPULATION OF JEFFERSON COUNTY
Number of School
System
LEAs in
FY 2012
Percent of
ID
Jefferson
ADM for FY Countywide
Number System Description
County
2013
Total ADM
037
Jefferson County
36,058.15
34.80%
1
113
Bessemer City
4,411.30
4.26%
2
114
Birmingham City
25,005.60
24.13%
3
137
Fairfield City
1,845.10
1.78%
4
157
Homewood City
3,590.65
3.47%
5
158
Hoover City
13,409.75
12.94%
6
167
Leeds City
1,641.05
1.58%
7
171
Midfield City
1,334.90
1.29%
8
175
Mountain Brook City
4,490.00
4.33%
9
197
Tarrant City
1,200.95
1.16%
10
202
Vestavia Hills City
6,445.70
6.22%
11
205
Trussville City
4,187.90
4.04%
12
TOTAL
103,621.05 100.00%
Note that the student enrollment or student count in ADM, which is average daily membership
over the first twenty scholastic days following Labor Day, is reported one year in arrears for the
purpose of allocating state and local funds. The student count for FY 2012 is the basis of
appropriation for FY 2012-13. As is seen in Table 2-1, 65.20% of students attend separate city
school systems.
Jefferson County has the highest across the board ad valorem taxes for schools in the
State with the citizens of the Jefferson County School System paying a millage rate of 30.1 mills
of ad valorem tax for schools. For the State of Alabama, this is an above average rate of ad
valorem tax burden when the minimum statewide ad valorem tax burden for public schools is 10
mills as required by Amendment 778 (the 10.0 mill minimum school ad valorem tax levy). After
the implementation of Amendment 778 (approved at election of November 7, 2006; proclaimed
14
ratified December 4, 2006), there were identified 197 school ad valorem tax districts among the
131 school systems of the State. Of these, 56 had the minimum 10 mills as required and 141
had a greater number of mills. Overall, among the 197 school tax districts, the average levy
was 11.87 mills. Among the 141 school tax districts with more than 10 mills, the average levy
was 14.17 mills. The highest millage rate in the State was Mountain Brook with 52.9 mills
followed by Vestavia Hills with 52.05 mills. While local tax effort for public schools in Alabama
is normally reported in equivalent mills, the best single measure of citizen and taxpayer support
is the number of mills levied and collected. The current millage rate in Jefferson County for
public schools is among the highest in the State and assists in the formation of a new city
school system since the new system would be grandfathered at 30.1 mills of school ad valorem
tax without any action by the voters of the city.
Figure 2-2
Municipal Boundaries of the City of Gardendale Attendance Zones
for Snow Rogers Elementary School and Gardendale Elementary School
15
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
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.
Table 2-2
JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM ADM FOR
CURRENT YEAR, NOT IN ARREARS
Annual
Cumulative
Change
Change
Year
ADM
2003-04
38,599.34
n/a
n/a
2004-05
39,442.77
843.43
843.43
2005-06
36,074.15
(3,368.62)
(2,525.19)
2006-07
36,406.05
331.90
(2,193.29)
2007-08
36,216.20
(189.85)
(2,383.14)
2008-09
36,245.65
29.45
(2,353.69)
2009-10
36,172.50
(73.15)
(2,426.84)
2010-11
35,952.30
(220.20)
(2,647.04)
2011-12
36,058.15
105.85
(2,541.19)
2012-13
36,159.40
101.25
(2,439.94)
As is seen in Table 2-3 below, the population of Jefferson County has demonstrated a
decline of -0.55% from 2000 to 2011. If all of the counties of the State of Alabama were ranked
by change in population over this period, Jefferson County would rank 38th 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 48th. 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%, the
important issue is where gains and losses 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
65.06% 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% to a positive 7.10%. 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
Table 2-3
Population Growth of Selected Counties in Alabama
Population Estimates
Counties of
for July 1,
2000
Alabama
2011
Alabama
4,452,173 4,802,740
Shelby County
144,674
195,858
Baldwin County
141,342
183,259
St. Clair County
65,080
83,835
Limestone County
65,966
83,239
Autauga County
44,021
54,637
Lee County
115,430
140,784
Madison County
278,006
336,141
Elmore County
66,160
79,590
Tuscaloosa County
165,414
194,998
Coffee County
43,580
50,167
Jefferson County
662,033
658,386
Source: US Bureau of the Census
Change
Percent
2000 to
Change Rank
2011
350,567
7.87% n/a
51,184
35.38%
1
41,917
29.66%
2
18,755
28.82%
3
17,273
26.18%
4
10,616
24.12%
5
25,354
21.96%
6
58,135
20.91%
7
13,430
20.30%
8
29,584
17.88%
9
6,587
15.11%
10
-3,647
-0.55%
38
Table 2-4
Cities In Jefferson County with City School Systems
Cities In Jefferson County
with City School Systems
Alabama
Jefferson County
Population
2000
4,452,173
662,033
Estimates
for July 1,
2011
4,802,740
658,386
Bessemer city
29,977
Birmingham city (pt.)
240,477
Fairfield city
12,252
Homewood city
25,203
Hoover city (pt.)
48,394
Leeds city (pt.)
9,137
Midfield city
5,597
Mountain Brook city
20,642
Tarrant city
7,172
Trussville city (pt.)
14,303
Vestavia Hills city (pt.)
30,630
TOTAL CITIES
443,784
27,452
210,591
11,117
25,164
58,575
9,808
5,364
20,410
6,396
19,445
34,014
428,336
Change
Percent
of
Percent
2000 to
County
Change
2011
350,567
7.87%
n/a
-3,647
-0.55%
n/a
-2,525
-29,886
-1,135
-39
10,181
671
-233
-232
-776
5,142
3,384
-15,448
-8.42%
-12.43%
-9.26%
-0.15%
21.04%
7.34%
-4.16%
-1.12%
-10.82%
35.95%
11.05%
-3.48%
4.17%
31.99%
1.69%
3.82%
8.90%
1.49%
0.81%
3.10%
0.97%
2.95%
5.17%
65.06%
However, this population shift has not left the population served by the Jefferson County
School system to decline. As is seen in Table 2-5 which follows, the population served by the
Jefferson County School System has also increased, by a significant 5.41%. However, this
statistic belies many important considerations. The first of these is that approximate one-half of
the increase in population served by the Jefferson County School System is found in the cities
of Gardendale, Fultondale, and Helena.
17
Table 2-5
Population Served by Jefferson County School system
Estimates
Change
Cities Without School
Population
Percent
for July 1,
2000 to
Systems
2000
Change
2011
2011
Adamsville city
5,021
4,522
-499
-9.94%
Argo town (pt.)
70
61
-9 -12.86%
Brighton city
3,605
2,945
-660 -18.31%
Brookside town
1,409
1,364
-45
-3.19%
Cardiff town
81
55
-26 -32.10%
Center Point city
16,680
16,929
249
1.49%
Clay city
8,858
9,706
848
9.57%
County Line town (pt.)
82
61
-21 -25.61%
Fultondale city
6,913
8,378
1,465
21.19%
Gardendale city
11,492
13,892
2,400
20.88%
Graysville city
2,453
2,164
-289 -11.78%
Helena city (pt.)
293
2,222
1,929 658.36%
Hueytown city
16,061
16,103
42
0.26%
Irondale city
11,624
12,347
723
6.22%
Kimberly town
1,833
2,710
877
47.85%
Lipscomb city
2,486
2,209
-277 -11.14%
Maytown town
469
385
-84 -17.91%
Morris town
1,809
1,858
49
2.71%
Mulga town
946
837
-109 -11.52%
North Johns town
169
145
-24 -14.20%
Pinson city
7,084
7,162
78
1.10%
Pleasant Grove city
10,017
10,108
91
0.91%
Sumiton city (pt.)
16
16
0
0.00%
Sylvan Springs town
1,486
1,543
57
3.84%
Trafford town (pt.)
566
646
80
14.13%
Warrior city
3,266
3,176
-90
-2.76%
West Jefferson town
412
338
-74 -17.96%
Balance of Jefferson County
103,048
108,168
5,120
4.97%
BALANCE
218,249
230,050
11,801
5.41%
The next consideration is the impact that the decline of population of the City of
Birmingham has had on the entire county. Overall in Jefferson County from 2000 to 2011, cities
and places and unincorporated areas showed a population loss of 37,033. Birmingham City
also accounted for 29,886 of this loss. Meanwhile, other areas gained 33,386 in population,
the net loss being 3,647 (these data not demonstrated in any provided Table). Obviously, the
City of Birmingham which accounted for 31.99% of the total population of Jefferson County in
2011 represents a very pronounced weakness in population growth in Jefferson County. Unless
the majority of that population that leaves Birmingham is relocated elsewhere in Jefferson
County, the losses will continue. To some degree, population growth in other areas of Jefferson
County is partially accounted for by this migratory population. Irrespective of the reasons, the
inevitable conclusion is that the City of Gardendale is growing and is among the fastest growing
cities in Jefferson County.
In the following Table 2-6, when the United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, and the
City of Gardendale (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 Estimates) are compared in terms of
owner occupied versus renter occupied housing units, the City of Gardendale shows a much
higher percentage of owner occupied housing units and a correspondingly lower percentage of
renter occupied housing than Jefferson County as a whole, than the State of Alabama, and the
United States. This comparison is, of course, a more favorable situation for a separate city
school system.
Any governmental unit would like to maximize revenues and minimize
expenditures. For a city school system, minimizing rental housing and maximizing home
ownership supports this objective.
18
Owner occupied housing tends to create a less dense student population, larger
personal dwellings and thus greater assessed value of ad valorem property per student.
However, rental property is commercial property which is assessed at a rate twice that of owner
occupied residential property and of course is not eligible for homestead exemption. The
exception would be in the case of public owned housing which is rented. When reviewing the
financial feasibility for a city to operate a separate school system, revenues are obviously
enhanced by ad valorem property which is more valuable and expenditures are minimized by
fewer children per household.
Table 2-6
Owner and Renter Occupied Housing
United
States
Alabama
Jefferson
County
City of
Gardendale
Owner Occupied Housing Units
65.10%
69.70%
64.90%
83.00%
Renter Occupied Housing Units
34.90%
30.30%
35.10%
17.00%
Category
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate
A similar comparison can be made by reviewing the average size of families and
households in different areas. As is demonstrated in the following Table 2-7 from the same
Census Bureau data, the size of the household and the family in the City of Gardendale is just
smaller than in Jefferson County. The advantage is even greater when compared to the State
of Alabama and the United States as a whole. On this basis of comparison, the smaller
household size and family size in the City of Gardendale than found in Jefferson County or
Alabama statewide could indicate a weaker participation rate in the public schools (fewer
students per household is viewed here as a positive). Larger family and/or household size
could tend toward larger dwellings to accommodate the size and thus in the end more taxable
property per student. But this could also translate into a high cost for city services per
household, including students enrolled in public schools. Fewer students per household in the
end means that tax dollars for public schools go further.
Table 2-7
Average Household and Family Size
United
Jefferson
City of
Alabama
Category
States
County
Gardendale
Average Household Size
2.58
2.48
2.44
2.42
Average Family Size
3.14
3.02
3.05
2.92
A further indication of a predicted larger student load can be found in Table 2-8 which
compares median age and the percent of population under five years of age. According to these
data, the City of Gardendale has a population in median age somewhat older than Jefferson
County, the State of Alabama, and the United States. In fact, the percentage of residents of the
City of Gardendale 65 and older is higher than all comparisons, a significantly large 18.4%
compared to a normative 13 to 14%. This population profile with a relatively lower incidence of
children in all age groups, from below five to 15 to 19, further supports the conclusion that the
proposed Gardendale City School System would have a relatively lower incidence of student
enrollment based upon family size and population distribution. While this may appear as a
possible indication of an older population less likely to support the creation of a Gardendale City
School System, it may also be an indication of the growing imperative to create the most
attractive environment possible for families to settle and raise their families.
19
Table 2-8
Median Age in Years and Percent of Population in Selected Age Groups
United
Jefferson
City of
Category
Alabama
States
County
Gardendale
Median Age in Years
37.2
37.9
37.1
41.9
Percent Under 5 Years
6.5%
6.4%
6.7%
6.1%
Percent Age 5 to 9 Years
6.6%
6.4%
6.4%
5.6%
6.7%
6.7%
6.4%
5.9%
7.1%
7.2%
6.8%
6.2%
Percent Age 65 Years and Over
13.0%
13.8%
13.1%
18.4%
Another measure of potential cost of students to be educated is the degree to which
English is the spoken language at home. According to Table 2-9, which expresses the percent
of homes in which a language other than English is spoken, the City of Gardendale has a
smaller percentage of non-English-speaking homes than does Jefferson County and the State
of Alabama. An even more significant advantage exists in this regard over the United States.
These data indicate that while a portion of households speak a language other than English at
home, the resultant expenditures for English as a Second Language (ESL) should not be
proportionately greater for the proposed the City of Gardendale School System than is currently
expended in Jefferson County.
Table 2-9
Language Other Than English Spoken at Home
United
Jefferson
Category
Alabama
States
County
Speak a Language Other than English at Home
20.30%
5.00%
5.80%
City of
Gardendale
2.40%
Another useful statistic to measure how well the tax base of a city can support a public
education system is to consider the income of its citizens. In the last Census of 2010, the per
capita income of Jefferson County ranked it 2nd among the 67 counties of Alabama, with a per
capita income of $41,844 or 125% of the State average in current dollars not adjusted for
Inflation (See Appendix 7-1).
By another analysis, census data estimated for 2010 shows in Table 2-10 that in terms
of the criterion of inflation adjusted per capita income, the City of Gardendale is substantially
higher than that of Jefferson County (112.94%), Alabama (129.68%), and the United States
(109.09%) in 2011 dollars. This same relative advantage is shown in terms of median
household income. In terms of the median value of owner occupied housing units, while
Gardendale trails the United States Average, it far exceeds the average of Jefferson County and
the State of Alabama. In addition, the City of Gardendale shows an extremely low incidence of
individuals living below the poverty level.
Table 2-10
Selected Measures of Income and Income Status
United
Jefferson
Category
Alabama
States
County
Median Household Income in Inflation Adjusted Dollars
$52,762
$42,934
$45,750
Median Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units
$186,200
$120,800
$141,700
$27,915
$23,483
$26,962
Per Capita Income in Inflation Adjusted Dollars
Individuals Below Poverty Level
14.30%
14.30%
16.20%
20
City of
Gardendale
$58,656
$166,900
$30,452
4.30%
In Appendix 7-2, it is shown that of the 493 places in Alabama (U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2005-2009)(Places, for the
reporting of decennial census data which includes census designated places, consolidated
cities, and incorporated places) shows that the City of Gardendale ranks 30th in per capita
income of all places in Alabama. In addition, it shows that on the basis of just ranking the
places (cities) in Alabama with their own city school system, Gardendale would rank between 5th
and 6th place.
Census Bureau Population Estimates for 2011
According to Census Bureau Population Estimates released in 2012, the population
growth (estimated) in Jefferson County from 2000 to 2011 over eleven years is a dramatic
negative -0.55% while the State of Alabama has grown 7.87%. Growth in the City of
Gardendale has been a very significant 20.88% Table 2-11 which follows displays the annual
growth of Alabama, Jefferson County, and the City of Gardendale.
Table 2-11
Change in Selected Population Areas in Alabama, 2000 to 2011
Area
Population
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Alabama
4,452,173 4,467,634 4,480,089 4,503,491 4,530,729 4,569,805 4,628,981 4,672,840 4,718,206 4,757,938
Jefferson County 662,033 660,197 657,518 657,513 656,023 654,919 655,893 655,163 656,510 658,441
Annual Change
n/a
-1,836
-2,679
-5
-1,490
-1,104
974
-730
1,347
1,931
Percent Change
n/a
-0.28%
-0.41%
0.00%
-0.23%
-0.17%
0.15%
-0.11%
0.21%
0.29%
Gardendale City
11,492
11,714
11,921
12,166
12,393
12,624
12,894
13,131
13,411
13,701
Annual Change
222
207
245
227
231
270
237
280
290
Percent Change
n/a
1.93%
1.77%
2.06%
1.87%
1.86%
2.14%
1.84%
2.13%
2.16%
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Intercensal Estimates
Estimates Estimates Change
for July 1, for July 1, 2000 t0 Percent
2011
2011
2010
Change
4,785,298 4,802,740 350,567
7.87%
658,555
658,386 -3,647
-0.55%
114
-169
0.02%
-0.03%
13,895
13,892
2,400
20.88%
194
-3
1.42%
-0.02%
Figure 2-3 which follows demonstrates both the relatively strong and consistent growth
in the City of Gardendale. An average annual growth rate of around two percent has been
maintained. A positive growth rate which is moderate and consistent in annual change
simplifies the challenges in creating a new city school system. A city board of education can
count on new households being formed which will contribute to the ad valorem tax base
(Classes I, II, and III on real and personal property excluding motor vehicles are collected one
year in arrears). Ad valorem taxes on Class I, II, and IV motor vehicles will be collected in the
current year and staggered on a monthly basis. Planned growth in student enrollment can be
managed effectively if dramatic increases due not occur in student population. However, growth
in new students to serve will not be annually matched by new ad valorem taxes paid, but rather
one year later. This will be discussed further in a subsequent chapter.
Figure 2-3
Annual Change in Population of Jefferson County and the City of Gardendale
21
B. STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN THE SCHOOL SITES IN GARDENDALE
Student enrollment in the Jefferson County School System has changed little over the
past decade, demonstrating a slight decline. Two important events have impacted student
count in Average Daily Membership or ADM during this period. The first was the change in
counting students from the first forty days of the scholastic year for counting students to the first
twenty days after Labor Day which was implemented for the 2005-06 school year. This change
increased student count. The second has been the creation of new city school systems in
Jefferson County which have drained some present and future growth in student count from the
Jefferson County School System. It should be noted that the decline from fiscal year 2005 to
2006 was the result of the pullout of Trussville City Schools (4,032 students) and the decline
from 2002 to 2003 was largely a result of the loss of 274 ADM to the Vestavia City Board of
Education upon transfer of the Cahaba Heights Community School, and approximately 1,265
ADM to the Leeds City Board of Education in the 2005-06 school year. However, since these
changes, the student count has been relatively constant.
The growth in student count in ADM which is the primary independent variable for
determining for state funding and allocation of countywide taxes is seen in Figure 2-4 which
follows. It must be noted that student counts from prior year are used in allocating state funds
for the current budget year. The data in Figure 2-4 is current year (2012-13) rather than prior
year.
Figure 2-4
Current Year Enrollment in ADM in Jefferson County Public Schools, 2004 to 2013
Note: The ADM reported as of 20 days in the 2011-12 school year will be the number of
students earning state allocations by the various funding formulae for FY 2012-13 (state
funding is one year in arrears of student count). State law was amended in 2005 for the
FY 2005-06 budget year to count students based upon the average daily membership for
the first 20 scholastic days following Labor Day rather than the first 40 scholastic days of
the school calendar as adopted for FY 1995-96.
When reviewing student count by ADM in the school sites located in the City of
Gardendale for the past several years, it must be remembered that these schools are not
exclusively for the children of the City of Gardendale, but rather represent attendance zones as
determined by the Jefferson Board of Education. Such attendance zones can change at the
discretion of the Jefferson County Board of Education since this is an authority granted local
22
boards of education. Thus the attendance count is normally greater than the resident student
count. Normally a school site is constructed nearest the largest student population, which is in a
city. However, the attendance zone for such school sites stretches into unincorporated county
as the prerogative of the county board of education. A discussion of each Jefferson County
school site in the City of Gardendale follows.
Gardendale Elementary School
Site 037-0300: Grades K-05
The Gardendale Elementary
School is located at 860
Bauer Lane, Gardendale,
Alabama 35071.
It is
currently operated as a
general school for grades K
through 5 (see Figure 2-5
for student count).
The
school is sited on a campus reported to encompass 28 acres. A total of 42 regular classrooms
and four small classrooms are reported with a student capacity of 920. In addition there are four
instructional portables and no substandard permanent classrooms. The site also includes ten
general administrative areas, a cafeteria, a gymnasium, a media center, and eight storage
rooms. The site consists of four buildings whose square footage totals 108,386 (See
Appendix 7-17 for the State Department of Education Facilities Reports Site Summary for this
site).
Building Number 0100
The main building (building number 1) was first constructed in 1967 with a square
footage of 51,789 of masonry/concrete construction in one story with a flat roof. The building is
100% air conditioned and handicapped accessible, but on a septic tank. A renovation was
made in 1976 consisting of 9,025 square feet. A second renovation occurred in 1991 with
25,563 square feet being added. This building contains 24 regular classrooms, four small
classrooms, a media center, and the cafeteria. All systems of the building are categorized as
being in good to moderate condition. However, some issues are noted with fascia and soffits,
exterior doors and frames, and excessive wear in the plumbing (See Appendix 7-18 for the
State Department of Education Facilities Reports Building Detail for this site).
Building number 2 was constructed in 1987 of masonry/concrete construction. It has a
flat roof, is 100% air conditioned, and is handicapped accessible. It contains 30,087 square feet.
It also is on a septic tank. It is reported to be in good to moderate condition. However, severe
conditions are noted with the exterior doors and frames, the exterior door hardware, and
excessive wear in the plumbing system.
Building number 3 was constructed in 1976 of masonry/concrete construction. It has a
flat roof and a square footage of 9,480. It is reported to contain one general administrative area
and is also on a septic tank. It is reported to be in good to moderate condition. However,
severe conditions are noted with fascia and soffits, cracks in the exterior walls, and buckling
with the interior doors and frames.
23
Building number 4 was constructed also in 1976 of masonry/concrete construction. It
has a flat roof and contains the gymnasium. It has a flat roof, a square footage of 8,910, and is
without air conditioning. It is reported to be in good to moderate condition. However, severe
conditions are noted for cracks in the exterior walls, cracks in exterior doors and frames, and
weather wear on exterior door hardware.
Building number 5 was constructed in 2002 of masonry/concrete construction. It is a
one story flat roof structure with 8,120 square feet. It is on the municipal sewer system. It is
100% air conditioned and handicapped accessible. It is reported as being used for storage and
in good condition. No deficiencies were noted.
School Site Attendance in ADM
The number of students attending the Gardendale Elementary School is demonstrated
below in Figure 2-5. From these attendance data and reported classroom capacity of 920, it
appears that the four instructional portables are not currently necessary to provide adequate
classroom space based upon architectural standards. However, for the number of students
assigned to the school site and based more realistic standards of students per classroom, the
instructional portables may be needed. Future growth of student enrollment would call for
additional classrooms. Please note that not all students currently in attendance are residents of
the City of Gardendale. The net attendance will be addressed at the end of this Chapter.
Figure 2-5
ADM for Gardendale Elementary School, School Year 2003-04 to 2012-13
School Site Debt
Jefferson County School System 2009B Pooled Purchase APSCA Bond Issue.
There
was a capital debt on the Gardendale Elementary School for classroom construction paid for
from the 2009B Pooled Purchase APSCA Bond Issue. The amount reported by the Jefferson
County Board of Education is a total for the Gardendale Elementary School and the Bragg
24
Middle School Classroom Construction (reported as one project) is the total principal amount of
$1,360,199.26. The balance due on this debt is $571,555.73.
Jefferson County Limited Obligation School Series 2000 Warrants. The Commission
issued Limited Obligation School Warrants, Series 2000 in order to finance the costs of
acquiring certain public school facilities (the “Leased Property”) of the Jefferson County Board of
Education (the “Board”), for lease back to the Board.
The principal amount of the debt was
$45,210,000. Of that amount , $23,215,460 was attributed to school sites. The current debt is
$15,189,220.88 countywide and the debt assigned to Gardendale Elementary School is
$378,698.10. The total of all debt will be considered in Chapter 5.
Snow Rogers Elementary School
The Snow Rogers Elementary
School is located at 2636
Snow
Rogers
Road,
Gardendale, Alabama 35071.
It is currently operated as a
general school for grades K
through 5 (see Figure 2-6 for
student count). The school is
sited on a campus reported to encompass 18 acres. A total of 24 regular classrooms are
reported with a student capacity of 540. In addition there is one instructional portable and no
reported substandard permanent classrooms. Two cafeterias are reported as well as one
gymnasium, one media center, three multipurpose areas, and eight storage areas. Overall, the
buildings are reported to total 49,169 square feet (See Appendix 7-19 for the State Department
of Education Facilities Reports Site Summary for this site).
The main building (building number 1) was first constructed in 1971 with a square footage of
23,029 of masonry/concrete construction in one story. There are 14 regular classrooms in the
building and is 100 percent air conditioned and handicapped accessible with a flat roof. The
school site is on a septic tank. The condition of the building is only reported as moderate. A
renovation was made in 1957 amounting to 2,530 square feet. The condition is reported
as moderate. Specific deficiencies noted include cracking of exterior walls, cracks in exterior
windows, cracks in interior walls and base, stains on floor finishes, excessive wear on toilets,
fixtures, and plumbing system, an outdated electrical system, and outdated heating and air
conditioning system (See Appendix 7-20 for the State Department of Education Facilities
Reports Building Detail for this site).
Building number 2 was constructed of masonry/concrete in 1971 with one story and a
flat roof. The building is 100% air conditioned and is handicapped accessible. The building
contains the cafeteria. It is reported at 7,609 square feet. The building is on a septic tank. The
condition is reported as moderate. Specific deficiencies noted include weathered roof, cracks
in fascia and soffits, cracks in exterior doors and frames, excessive wear to exterior door
hardware, excessive wear to toilets and fixtures, outdated kitchen equipment, outdated heating
and air conditioning system, and excessive wear to plumbing and electrical systems.
25
Building number 3 was constructed in 1977 with a wood frame and masonry veneer.
The reported square footage is 18,531 contained in one story with a pitched roof. The building
is 100% air conditioned and is handicapped accessible. It contains the gymnasium and is on a
septic tank. The building is reported to be is good condition with no deficiencies noted.
School Site Attendance
The number of students attending the Snow Rogers Elementary School is demonstrated
appears that with the single instructional portable there is sufficient classroom space currently
and for some future growth in the number of students assigned to the school site. Please note
that not all students currently in attendance are residents of the City of Gardendale. The net
attendance will be addressed at the end of this Chapter.
Figure 2-6
ADM for Snow Rogers Elementary School, 2003-04 to 2012-13
School Site Debt
There
County Board for the Snow Rogers Elementary School is the principal amount of
$968,591.31. The balance due on this debt is $407,002.
$15,189,220.88 countywide and the debt assigned to the Snow Rogers Elementary School is
26
Bragg Middle School
Site 037-0095: Grades 06-08
The Bragg Middle School is located at
840 Ash Avenue, Gardendale, Alabama
35071. This site serves grades 6 through 8.
The campus is reported to consist of 10 acres
and capable of serving a student enrollment of
910.
The campus has 3 instructional
portables and no substandard permanent
classrooms. The site consists of two buildings
with a total square footage of 73,200. The site
has 29 regular classrooms, four science
laboratories, a home economics department,
a band/choral department, a cafeteria, an
auditorium, a media center, and 19 storage
areas (See Appendix 7-21 for the State
Department of Education Facilities Reports Site Summary for this site).
Building number 1 was constructed in 1976, with 73,200 square feet. It is of
masonry/concrete construction and is 95% air conditioned and handicapped accessible. It
contains 17 regular classrooms, four science labs, the home economics department, the
band/choral department, the cafeteria, and the media center. A renovation was made on
17,400 square feet in 1977. The overall condition of the building is reported as severe.
Specific deficiencies were noted for cracks in exterior windows, weathered exterior doors and
frames, excessive wear of exterior door hardware, excessive wear of cabinetry and shelving
and also for kitchen equipment. The electrical system was identified as overloaded. (See
Appendix 7-22 for the State Department of Education Facilities Reports Building Detail for this
site).
Building number 2 was constructed in 2004 of masonry/concrete construction, with
16,364 square feet in one story with a pitched roof. It is 100% air conditioned and handicapped
accessible. It contains 12 regular classrooms and administrative and storage areas. The
overall condition of the building is reported as good. The only deficiency noted was with
weathering of exterior doors and frames.
The number of students attending the Bragg Middle School is demonstrated below in
Figure 2-7. From these attendance data and reported classroom capacity of 910, it appears
that the five instructional portables while not necessary to provide adequate classroom space
for the number of students assigned to the school site according to architectural standards, they
are necessary for current enrollment. It also appears that accommodating additional student
load in the near future would necessitate additional classroom space to be provided. Please
note that not all students currently in attendance are residents of the City of Gardendale. The
net attendance will be addressed at the end of this Chapter.
27
Figure 2-7
ADM for Bragg Middle School, 2003-04 to 2012-13
School Site Debt
There
County Board of Education is a total for the Gardendale Elementary School and the Bragg
Middle School Classroom Construction (reported as one project) in the principal amount of
$1,360,199.26. The balance due on this debt is $571,555.73.
$15,189,220.88 countywide and the debt assigned to the Bragg Middle School is $374,907.96.
The total of all debt will be considered in Chapter 5.
Gardendale High School
Site 037-0310: Grades 09-12
The Gardendale High School is
the newest school site in the City of
Gardendale, located at 800 Main Street
Gardendale, Alabama 35071. The site is
composed of three buildings on a
reported 65 acres. A student capacity of
4,008 is reported, but the correct capacity
is 1,300.
There are no instructional
portables and no substandard permanent
classrooms. There is a total of 162,332
square feet for the three buildings. The
site contains the following instructional
areas: three agribusiness rooms, one
auditorium, one cafeteria, three home
economics departments, one media
28
center, eight multipurpose areas, 43 regular classrooms, eight science labs, 10 small
classrooms, a weight room, and six storage areas (See Appendix 7-23 for the State
Department of Education Facilities Reports Site Summary for this site).
The main building, number 1, of the Gardendale High School campus was constructed in
2010. The square footage is 111,382 and is on the municipal sewer system. It has a maximum
height of four stories and uses a combination of flat and peaked roof systems. It is 100% air
conditioned and is handicapped accessible. It is characterized as being in good condition. No
deficiencies are noted (See Appendix 7-24 for the State Department of Education Facilities
Reports Building Detail for this site).
Building number 2 entitled Vocational was constructed of masonry and concrete in 2009.
It is a structure which houses the three agribusiness departments. It consists of 24,300 square
feet in two stories, of masonry/concrete construction with peaked roofs. It is 100% air
conditioned and is handicapped accessible. It is characterized as being in good condition. No
deficiencies are noted.
Building number 3 is named the Field House and was constructed in 2009. The
construction type is wood frame and contains 24,160 square feet. It contains the weight room.
It is 100% air conditioned and is handicapped accessible. It is characterized as being in good
condition. No deficiencies are noted.
The number of students attending the Gardendale High School is presented below in
Figure 2-8. From these attendance data and reported classroom capacity of 4,008, it appears
that currently adequate classroom space exists for the number of students assigned to the
school site. Please note that not all students currently in attendance are residents of the City of
Gardendale. The net attendance will be addressed at the end of this Chapter.
Figure 2-8
ADM for Gardendale High School 2003-04 to 2012-13
29
School Site Debt
The buildings at this site were constructed from the proceeds of the Jefferson County
School Construction Warrant Issue. As such, the debt incurred for the construction of the
Gardendale High School is not a debt of the Jefferson County Board of Education, but of the
Jefferson County Commission on behalf of all of the citizens and students of Jefferson County.
$15,189,220.88 countywide and the debt assigned to the Gardendale High School is
Mount Olive Elementary School
Not in the City of Gardendale
The Mount Olive Elementary
School is located at 1301 Brookside
Road Mount Olive, Alabama 35117. It is
currently operated as an Elementary
School for grades K-5 (see Figure 2-9
for student count). The school is sited
on a campus reported to consist of 15
acres and contains two buildings. A
student capacity of 440 is reported for a
square footage of 44,986. The campus
contains 22 regular classrooms, a media
center, a cafeteria, and a gymnasium
(See Appendix 7-25 for the State Department of Education Facilities Reports Site Summary for
this site).
Building 0100
Building number 1 was constructed in 1970 of masonry/concrete construction. It has
36,256 square feet in one story under a flat roof. It is on a septic tank and contains the
cafeteria, three general administrative areas, a media center, 22 regular classrooms, and four
storage areas. It is 100% air conditioned and is handicapped accessible. It is characterized as
being in moderate condition. Specific deficiencies noted include cracks in exterior walls,
weathered exterior windows, excessive wear of floor finishes, outdated kitchen equipment,
excessive wear of plumbing system, and overloaded electrical system. (See Appendix 7-26 for
the State Department of Education Facilities Reports Building Detail for this site).
Building 0200
Building 2 of the Mount Olive Elementary School was constructed in 1977 of
masonry/concrete construction. It has a flat roof covering one story with 8,460 square feet.
Only 20% of the building is air conditioned and is not handicapped accessible. The building
30
contains the gymnasium. There are no instructional portables and no reported substandard
classrooms. The condition of the building is reported as good to moderate. However, specific
deficiencies were noted including cracks in the exterior walls and base, excessive wear of
interior door hardware, an outdated electrical system, and an outdated heating and air
conditioning system.
The number of students attending the Mount Olive Elementary School is demonstrated
appears that adequate classroom space is tight for the number of students assigned to the
school site, even with six instructional portables. Please note that not all students currently in
attendance are residents of the City of Gardendale. The net attendance will be addressed at
the end of this Chapter.
Figure 2-9
ADM for Mount Olive Elementary School 2003-04 to 2012-13
School Site Debt
$15,189,220.88 countywide and the debt assigned to the Mount Olive Elementary School is
Summary of Student Attendance in the School Sites of Gardendale, Alabama
Projecting future student attendance at specific school sites is a difficult proposition for
several reasons. The first is that populations (county and municipality) are mobile and that
certain geographic areas are population growth areas. The second is that city code and
permitting regulations may serve to elicit or discourage population growth. The third is that
attendance zones and school transportation patterns for a city without a city school system are
subject to annual review and redrawing by a county board of education. And the fourth is that
31
while a city school system is legally responsible to provide an educational opportunity for any
resident student, some parents may have chosen not to use a public school system and may
reverse that decision in the future. So for the purposes of this study, the best procedure is to
attempt to assess the total resident students of the City of Gardendale and use that student
count as a baseline, along with potential enrollees currently in private schools and being home
schooled, for calculating financial feasibility of a separate City of Gardendale School System.
In the following Table 2-12, the historical trend in student enrollment in the school sites
of Gardendale is presented:
Table 2-12
Student Attendance in the School Sites of Gardendale, 2004 to 2013
TOTAL ADM OF SCHOOL SITES IN GARDENDALE
Grades K-12
Annual
Percent Annual % Jefferson
Change
Change
County ADM
Fiscal Year
ADM
2003-04
2,486.0
n/a
n/a
6.44%
2004-05
2,515.1
29.16
1.17%
6.38%
2005-06
2,633.2
118.08
4.69%
7.30%
2006-07
2,716.0
82.75
3.14%
7.46%
2007-08
2,724.6
8.65
0.32%
7.52%
2008-09
2,888.2
163.55
6.00%
7.97%
2009-10
2,969.3
81.15
2.81%
8.21%
2010-11
2,995.5
26.15
0.88%
8.33%
2011-12
3,039.2
43.75
1.46%
8.43%
2012-13
3,064.2
25.00
0.82%
8.47%
Note: Does not include Mount Olive Elementary School
However, as previously discussed, not all of these students are residents of the City of
Gardendale, and those non-residents will not be counted in the analysis of financial feasibility.
However, should the proposed City of Gardendale School System be formed, the Board of
Education could develop and implement policies to allow non-residents to attend. In addition,
some resident students of Gardendale are obtaining educational services from the Jefferson
County Board of Education in other school sites. For the purposes of this Study for School Year
2012-13, 2,214 Gardendale residents have been identified as attending the school sites of the
City of Gardendale as shown below in Table 2-13.
Table 2-13
Resident Student Count in the Proposed the City of Gardendale School Sites
Estimated Resident Student Population for 2012-13
Grade
Gardendale
Elementary
Snow
Rogers
Bragg
Middle
K
152
42
1
151
38
2
125
37
3
135
38
4
118
39
5
137
45
6
178
7
156
8
162
9
10
11
12
TOTAL
818
239
496
Student Population Count in Enrollment
32
Gardendale
High School
TOTAL
202
156
147
156
661
194
189
162
173
157
182
178
156
162
202
156
147
156
2,214
In addition, 1,022 non-resident students are reported attending the school sites in the City of
Gardendale.
Table 2-13 above illustrates the following. (1) Without accommodating any nonresident students, the proposed the City of Gardendale School System’s physical plant should
be filled less than capacity. (2) The proposed the City of Gardendale School System could
potentially liquidate instructional portables based upon anticipated student enrollment. (3)
Minimum existing debt would be absorbed by the proposed City of Gardendale School System.
However, some immediate maintenance, repair and renovation appear necessary. (4) The
proposed the City of Gardendale School System should budget local resources for a capital
outlay plan in the near future.
Maximum Class Size Caps Set By the State Board Of Education
In the previous description of the respective school sites, references were made to the
numbers of students that can be accommodated in the classroom spaces as determined by the
Alabama State Department of Education Site and Facility Enumeration (SAFE) survey.
These determinations are based upon 30 students being accommodated in a regular
classroom. No conclusion is made as to the rationality of this determination. This is derived
from a minimum square footage per student architectural criterion to define a standard
classroom size. Obviously, from the regulations of the State Board of Education which follow in
Table 2-14 pertaining to maximum class size, the number is dramatically overstated for
numbers of students per classroom, particularly in grades K-3.
Table 2-14
Resolution of State Board of Education Limiting Class Size:
Approved September 11, 1997, and Amended January 8, 1998
Grade
Class Size Cap
K-3
4-6
7-8
9-12
18
26
20
29
Therefore to this point we have statements of the numbers of students which can safely
be accommodated by classroom and by school site by the Alabama State Department of
Education. In an unrelated provision, we have a statement by the Alabama State Board of
Education of the maximum number of students for instructional purposes that can be placed in a
classroom. The third variable affecting the number of students per teacher or classroom can be
found in Table 2-15 which follows.
For the purposes of appropriating the proper number of teachers (teacher units) each
year in the 1995 Foundation Program, the Alabama State Board of Education recommends
annually to the Legislature the divisors which shall be used to calculate the number of teacher
units. It is the intention of the Alabama State Board of Education that each local board of
education budget each Foundation Program Teacher unit where earned based on prior year
Average Daily Membership (ADM).
33
Table 2-15
Divisors of the Foundation Program for FY 2009 through FY 2013
Grade
Divisors
Act 2008 - 552
Act 2009 - 339
Act 2010 - 610
FY 2008-09
FY 2009-10
FY 2010-11
FY 2011-12
FY 2012-13
K
13.80
13.80
13.80
14.25
14.25
1
13.80
13.80
13.80
14.25
14.25
2
13.80
13.80
13.80
14.25
14.25
3
13.80
13.80
13.80
14.25
14.25
4
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.85
21.85
5
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.85
21.85
6
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.85
21.85
7
20.10
20.00
20.00
20.45
20.45
8
20.00
18.00
20.00
20.45
20.45
9
20.10
18.00
18.00
18.45
18.45
10
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.45
18.45
11
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.45
18.45
12
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.45
18.45
Act 2011 - 655 Act 2012 - 569
Jefferson County Board of Education Property Located in the City of Gardendale
There are no recorded 16th Section School Lands located in the City of Gardendale.
The following Table 2-16 summarizes the acreage of Jefferson County Board of Education
property located in the City of Gardendale upon which the four school sites are situated:
Table 2-16
Jefferson County Board of Education Property in the City of Gardendale
School Sites in the City of Gardendale
Site
Site
Name of School
Number
Grades
Acreage
Site 037-0300
Grades K-05
28
Site 037-0840
Grades K-05
18
Bragg Middle School
Site 037-0095
Grades 06-08
10
Site 037-0310
Grades 09-12
65
Grades K-12
121
Total School Sites of Gardendale
This Table will be repeated in Chapter 5 and shows 121 acres according to the SAFE survey as
submitted by the Jefferson County Board of Education to the Alabama State Department of
Education.
Summary of Instructional Personnel Budgeted
From Local Funds in the Schools of Gardendale for School Year 2012-2013
From the Supplemental Information to the adopted FY 2012-13 Budgets by the
Jefferson County Board of Education for each school site in the City of Gardendale (statutorily
required by the Alabama State Department of Education as an Attachment to Exhibit P-II in
each local board of education’s approved budget), the following summary of budgeted
personnel is provided as Table 2-17. Each school sites budget is found as Appendices 7-27
to 7-31.
From reviewing Table 2-17, the following conclusions can be made. By comparison
with the 1995 Foundation Program Teacher Units earned as Regular Classroom Teachers and
as Instructional Support Teachers (found in Appendices 7-27 through 7-31), and the budgeted
34
certificated employees, the earned teacher units appear to be budgeted at the school site where
earned in accordance with State Board of Education regulations. A total of 167.0 teacher units
are earned and budgeted. A total of 19.0 instructional support units are earned and 20.5
budgeted (the 1.5 additional librarians are funded from other state funds). In addition, 3.95
Classroom Teachers appear to be budgeted from local funds for these school sites along with
0.5 Counselors, 0.5 Librarians and 3.00 Administrators. This totals to 7.95 certificated
personnel. From Federal sources, 5.50 Classroom Teachers are funded.
Table 2-17
Summary of Certificated Personnel Budgeted
In the Schools of the City of Gardendale for School Year 2012-13
Type
of Personnel
Classification
Teachers
Librarians
Counselors
Administrators
Certified Support Personnel
Number By
BS
73.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
**Level of Degree
DO
6Y
MS
5.50
1.00
95.40
0.00
4.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
6.50
5.00
5.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.Source of Funds
ND
2.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Non. Cert. Supp. Personnel
Total
State Earned Other State
167.00
4.50
6.50
8.00
0.00
0.00
186.00
1.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.70
Federal
Local
5.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
13.50
3.95
0.50
0.50
3.00
0.00
11.00
18.95
Total
Employees
178.15
5.00
7.00
11.00
0.00
19.00
220.15
The average cost of a teacher unit as appropriated in the Education Appropriations Acts
for FY 2012-13 follows in Table 2-18:
Table 2-18
Estimated Cost of a Teacher Unit for FY 2012-13
COST OF A FOUNDATION PROGRAM TEACHER UNIT 2013
Allocation
Per Teacher
COST FACTORS
Total Allocation
Unit
I. SALARIES
a Salaries total
$ 2,241,417,173
47,161.06
b Number of tus
Average Salary
$ 47,526.86
II. FRINGE BENEFITS
a FICA
6.200% $ 2,946.67
b Medicare
1.450% $
689.14
c TRS
10.080% $ 4,790.71
d UC
0.125% $
59.41
e PEEHIP
$714.00 $ 8,568.00
420.00
FRLEAVE
$60.00 $
Total Fringe Benefits
$ 17,473.92
III. OTHER CURRENT EXPENSE
a Total Other Current Expense $ 705,430,374 $ 14,957.90
IV. INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT*
a Library Enhancement/TU
$
b Student Materials/TU
$
300.00
c Common Purchases/TU
$
d Professional Development/TU
$
$
e Technology/TU
$
300.00
Total Instructional Support
TOTAL COST OF A TEACHER UNIT
$ 80,258.68
*Textbooks not funded on a per teacher unit basis
FRINGE BENEFITS AS PERCENT OF SALARY
36.77%
On the basis of the average per teacher unit costs above, the 7.95 locally funded (sum of locally
funded personnel in Table 2-17) certificated personnel represent a continuing cost of $639,662
for FY 2013 if maintained, from local revenues.
In addition, the resorting of student
population (different distribution of students’ needs) in the proposed the City of Gardendale
35
School System could result in more or fewer federally funded personnel being available from
federal funds. Of course, these personnel cannot be anticipated due to the uncertainty of federal
funding for the future and for the number and type of educational needs of enrollees in the
proposed Gardendale City School System.
C. TAXES LEVIED AND COLLECTED IN THE CITY OF GARDENDALE
Ad Valorem Taxes Levied and Collected in the City of Gardendale
Residents of the City of Gardendale currently pay ad valorem taxes levied for three
purposes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Statewide purposes;
Jefferson County general purposes; and
Jefferson County Public School Purposes
State and County Millages
A summary of these ad valorem tax levies follows in Table 2-19 for State purposes and
for general county purposes. As seen in this table, the residents of the City of Gardendale pay
a combined total of 20.0 mills for State and general county purposes.
Table 2-19
State and Jefferson County General Purpose Ad Valorem Levies
JEFFERSON COUNTY MILLAGE RATES FOR 2012 FOR
NON-EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
Category
Mills
Total
STATE OF ALABAMA
Public School Fund
3.00
Soldier Fund
1.00
2.50
General Fund
Total
6.50
JEFFERSON COUNTY
General Fund
5.60
Road
2.10
Bridge
5.10
Sewer
0.70
Total
13.50
TOTAL STATE AND COUNTY
20.00
*County Millage Rates as published annually by the Alabama
Department of Revenue.
However, the greatest proportion of all ad valorem tax levied and collected in the City of
Gardendale is for the Jefferson County School System.
When the millages levied for Jefferson County Public Schools are considered in Table 220 which follows, the result is a total of 51.0 mills levied and collected for all purposes (Note –
Vestavia Hills levies and collects 52.05 local mills just for public schools while Mountain Brook
levies and collects 52.9 local mills; these are the highest current millage rates in the State for
school purposes).
36
Table 2-20
Total Millage Rate Levied and Collected in the City of Gardendale
City of Gardendale Ad Valorem Tax Rates for 2012*
Category
Mills
STATE OF ALABAMA
Public School Fund
Soldier Fund
General Fund
Percent
of Total
Total
3.00
1.00
2.50
Total
6.50
12.97%
13.50
26.95%
30.10
60.08%
JEFFERSON COUNTY
General Fund
Road
Bridge
Sewer
5.6
2.1
5.1
0.7
Total
Jefferson COUNTY SCHOOL
Countywide School Tax
School Tax District Tax
8.20
21.90
Total
MUNICIPALITY OF GARDENDALE
GRAND TOTAL**
0.00
0.00%
50.10
100.00%
*County Millage Rates as published annually by the Alabama Department of Revenue.
**Total millage rate of ad valorem tax levied and collected on property in the City of
Gardendale is 50.1 mills. Of this total there are no municipal mills.
Municipal Millages
All municipalities in Alabama are authorized to levy a 5.0 mill tax upon real and personal
property located within their corporate limits computed on the value as assessed for State and
county taxation. No referendum is required for the levy of this tax as provided in Section 216,
Alabama Constitution of 1901. Amendment 56 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 authorizes
all cities and towns to levy such tax at a rate not exceeding 12-1/2 mills, provided that all over 5
mills is authorized by the electors of the municipality at an election called for that purpose.
Therefore, while a City Council may call for a referendum on the next 7.5 mills as authorized by
Amendment 56, the actually levy and collection is dependent upon a successful referendum.
Amendments 6, 8, 13, 17, 31, 54 and 84 to the State Constitution provide different rates
for specified municipalities. The responsibility for levying the ad valorem tax rests with the
governing body of the municipality. In addition, there are numerous special local application
constitutional amendments which affect only one municipality.
The general municipal
constitutional authorizations provided are summarized in Table 2-21 which follows:
Table 2-21
Constitutional Authorizations for Municipal Ad Valorem Taxes
Rate in Mills
5.0 for general purposes;
Constitutional Authorization
Section 216; also authorizes certain
one-half of one percentum
cities to levy more than 5.0 mills.
Amendment No. 56 . Now appearing
7.5 for general purposes; as Section 216.04 of the Official
three-fourths of one percentum Recompilation of the Constitution of
Alabama of 1901 as amended.
Amendment No. 269. Now appearing
0.5 for public libraries - one as Section 215.05 of the Official
half of one percentum
Recompilation of the Constitution of
Alabama of 1901 as amended.
Implementation Statutes
None. No election required.
None. Election required.
None. Election required.
The City Council of any municipality may appropriate the proceeds of any municipal ad valorem
tax for public school purposes, but such taxes would not be a school millage. An explanation
follows.
37
School Millages
A complex array of authorizations for school ad valorem taxes exists in Alabama.
However, as with the case of statewide and general county millages, a constitutional
authorization must exist for each levy. While such authorizations are generally consistent for
the respective school systems of the State, there is variation and the situation in Jefferson
County has expertly utilized the provisions of Amendment 373 to increase the rate of millages
for schools. A school ad valorem tax is one whose levy and renewal is directed by specific
statutes. Other millages are not bound by these statutes and may be millages for schools.
Sales and Use Taxes Levied and Collected in the City of Gardendale
State Sales and Use Taxes
While the application of the ad valorem tax rests upon specific constitutional
authorizations, and the income tax is forbidden to local government by the Constitution of 1901,
access to the sales and use tax is virtually unlimited, especially for municipalities. The general
State sales/use tax paid by consumers in the City of Gardendale is 4.0 cents on the dollar. Of
this amount approximately 85% is earmarked and annually credited to the Education Trust Fund
for educational purposes. This is seen in Table 2-22. A separate rate is charged for autos,
farm equipment, and heavy equipment. And the Use Tax, which is an excise tax applied as a
companion to the Sales Tax on storage, use, or other consumption in this State on items
purchased outside Alabama, also is applied at corresponding rates by item of taxation.
Table 2-22
Alabama Department of Revenue
Sales, Use, Lodgings and Rental Tax Rates Detail Report
STATE TAX RATES
Tax Type
Rate Type
CONSUMERS USE
AUTO
FARM
CONSUMERS USE
CONSUMERS USE
GENERAL
MFG. MACHINE
CONSUMERS USE
GENERAL (MOUNTAIN LAKES AREA)
LODGINGS TAX
GENERAL (ALL OTHER AREAS)
LODGINGS TAX
AUTO
RENTAL TAX
LINENS/GARMENTS
RENTAL TAX
GENERAL
RENTAL TAX
SALES TAX
AUTO
FARM
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
GENERAL
MFG. MACHINE
SALES TAX
VENDING (FOOD PRODUCTS)
SALES TAX
VENDING (ALL OTHER)
SALES TAX
SELLERS USE
AUTO
SELLERS USE
FARM
SELLERS USE
GENERAL
MFG. MACHINE
SELLERS USE
Rate
2.00%
1.50%
4.00%
1.50%
5.00%
4.00%
1.50%
2.00%
4.00%
2.00%
1.50%
4.00%
1.50%
3.00%
4.00%
2.00%
1.50%
4.00%
1.50%
Jefferson County Sales and Use Taxes
A complete discussion of the earmarking of the sales and use taxes by Jefferson County
for schools and general purposes will be presented in Chapter 5. However, Table 2-23 details
the sales/use tax rates levied and collected by Jefferson County:
38
Table 2-23
Alabama Department of Revenue
JEFFERSON COUNTY [county]
Tax Type
CONSUMERS USE
CONSUMERS USE
CONSUMERS USE
CONSUMERS USE
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SELLERS USE
SELLERS USE
SELLERS USE
SELLERS USE
Locality Code: 7037County Location: Jefferson County
Current Tax Rates as of the 1st of February 2013
Rate Type
Rate
Active Date Action
PJ
AUTO
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
FARM
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
GENERAL
2.00%
1/1/2005
RC
MFG. MACHINE
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
AUTO
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
FARM
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
GENERAL
2.00%
1/1/2005
RC
MFG. MACHINE
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
VENDING
1.50%
1/1/2005
RC
W/D FEE
$2.50
1/1/2005
RC
AUTO
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
FARM
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
GENERAL
2.00%
1/1/2005
RC
MFG. MACHINE
0.75%
1/1/2005
RC
Administrator
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
City of Gardendale Sales and Use Taxes
The City of Gardendale also, by authority granted the Gardendale City Council, levies
and collects a general sales/use tax at the rate of 4.0 percent with varying rates on selective
sales. See the following Table 2-24.
Table 2-24
Tax Type
CONSUMERS USE
CONSUMERS USE
CONSUMERS USE
CONSUMERS USE
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SALES TAX
SELLERS USE
SELLERS USE
SELLERS USE
SELLERS USE
GARDENDALE [city]
Locality Code: 9360County Location: Jefferson County
Current Tax Rates as of the 1st of February 2013
Active
Rate Type
Rate
Action
PJ
Date
AUTO
FARM
GENERAL
MFG. MACHINE
AUTO
FARM
GENERAL
MFG. MACHINE
VENDING
W/D FEE
AUTO
FARM
GENERAL
MFG. MACHINE
0.75%
1.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.75%
1.00%
4.00%
2.00%
4.00%
$5.00
0.75%
1.00%
4.00%
2.00%
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
1/1/2011
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Administrator
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
Therefore by summing these sales/use tax levies, the total general sales tax rate in the City of
Gardendale seen to be 10.0 cents on the dollar. While there are other municipalities across the
state levying the sales and use tax at this rate, it is uncommon. The most common statewide
rate is nine cents on the dollars in a municipality. See Table 2-25 which follows for total sales
and use tax rate currently collected in the City of Gardendale.
39
Table 2-25
Total Sales/Use Tax Rate in the City of Gardendale
SALES/USE TAX RATES PAID BY RESIDENTS OF GARDENDALE
Rate for Farm
Rate for
Category
General Rate Automobiles
Equipment
State of Alabama
4.00%
Jefferson County
2.00%
4.00%
Gardendale City
Total
10.00%
Current Tax Rates as of February 25, 2013
2.00%
1.50%
0.75%
0.75%
0.75%
3.50%
1.00%
3.25%
D. CONCLUSIONS
The demographics of the City of Gardendale do not present any outstanding issues that
would be incompatible with the formation of a separate city school system. In fact, the
demographics appear very favorable. The pattern across Alabama has been that a new city
school system being formed requires additional local revenues, and the historical pattern has
been for the levy and collection of additional city sales and use taxes. A predominant reason for
this is that the levy and collection is an authority granted a city council (not subject to
referendum) and that the first day of collection is not delayed by months but by weeks. Since the
rate of sales/use taxes that is considered the reasonable maximum statewide is 9.0%, the
current rate of 10.0% precludes additional sales/use tax as a revenue alternative for the City of
Gardendale. Should the City Council conclude that a portion of this current Gardendale City
sales/use tax rate of four percent not be essential for an existing function of the operations of
the City, it could be rededicated to the proposed Gardendale City School System.
Since most municipalizes across the state levy and collect at least of the portion of the
five mills of ad valorem which can be levied and collected by city council resolution, and since
the City of Gardendale has not exercised that option, it also is an opportunity for additional
revenues for the proposed Gardendale City School System. Or an ad valorem tax could be
used to fund city services currently funded by the existing sales/use taxes.
The school sites presently existing in the City of Gardendale appear adequate for the
immediate future to accommodate resident students. There should be excess capacity to allow
for growth in the future, whether by new housing or annexation. A number of students currently
attending school sites in the City of Gardendale may not be eligible to attend the proposed City
of Gardendale School System (this will be decision of the proposed the City of Gardendale
Board of Education). The infrastructure in terms of physical plant, debt, and personnel is in
place to serve the current students, both resident and non-resident. Should the proposed City
of Gardendale School System be formed, only the Board will be empowered to make decisions
as to who would be allowed to attend school in Gardendale. At a minimum, every resident
student would be entitled by law the right to attend the City of Gardendale Schools.
The residential and commercial growth potential of the City of Gardendale is somewhat
challenged by the haphazard boundaries of the city which have developed over time. However,
the imperatives of growth in Northern Jefferson County will mean that many unincorporated
areas will eventually find a home through annexation into a municipality. It is reasonable to
expect that commercial growth will continue along the I-65 interchanges and the Highway 31
corridor north. The proposed northern interstate beltline will dramatically alter the commercial
40
landscape near its interchange with I-65 North. Residential redevelopment assessed at 10%
has the opportunity to be more expensive housing which would assist in the financial support of
a separate city school system. New commercial growth assessed at 20% has the ability to yield
both increased ad valorem and sales and use tax revenues in the commercial development
along I-65.
It would be expected that the City Council with collaboration with the proposed
Gardendale City Board of Education would jointly study and analyze the fiscal impact of future
proposed annexation and development of property, residential and commercial. The obvious
desire is to maximize revenues to the proposed Gardendale City Board of Education while
minimizing cost. City issues of zoning and annexation can have a profound effect of funding of
and expenditures of a city school system.
41
3. STATE FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN
ALABAMA: TYPES OF STATE SCHOOL AID FORMULAS
Funding from the State for the support of public schools in Alabama comes from
state tax revenues earmarked to the Education Trust Fund (ETF) and the Public School
Fund (PSF) (technically renamed the Educational Fund by Amendment 111). There are other
small state revenue sources allocated to local boards of education but in such small amounts as
not to affect the outcome of this study. While annually appropriated in the annual education
appropriations bill (s), these funds are distributed in four different ways:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1995 Foundation Program allocations from the ETF (distribution specified by
statute);
Categorical Aid allocations from the 1995 Capital Purchase Program from the
PSF (distribution specified by statute);
Categorical Aid allocations from the ETF (distribution determined in annual
education appropriations bill); and
State Department of Education allocations from the ETF (distribution determined in
annual education appropriations bill or by resolution of State Board of Education).
A. THE 1995 FOUNDATION PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS
The predominant state aid program for funding public education in Alabama is the
Foundation Program approved in the 1995 Regular Session of the Legislature. The 1995
Foundation Program uses the teacher unit as the allocation unit as did its predecessor of 1935.
Allocation Units of the 1995 Foundation Program - Teacher Units
There are three types of teacher units recognized in the 1995 Foundation Program: (1)
Regular Teacher Units, (2) Instructional Support Teacher Units, and (3) Current Teacher Units.
A discussion of each follows. The process will be displayed in Figure 3-1 which will follow.
Regular Teacher Units
Regular teacher units are earned by grade level by building site based on student
divisors and are recommended annually by the State Board of Education and approved by the
Legislature in the annual Education Appropriations Act. Students are counted in Average Daily
Membership (ADM) by grade for the first 20 scholastic days of the academic year following
Labor Day. The divisors for FY 2008-09 through FY 2012-13 follow in Table 3-1 and
demonstrate cost cutting measures imposed by the Legislature in the 2011 Regular Session.
In order to reduce appropriations, each divisor by grade was increased by 0.45.
The assignment of varying divisors by grade (lower grades and upper grades have
relatively smaller divisors) is an acknowledgement of the cost differential of providing
educational opportunities appropriate by age. These variable divisors by grade represent the
only component of Vertical Equity (unequal treatment of unequals) in the 1995 Foundation
Program.
42
Figure 3-1
General Flowchart of 1995 Foundation Program, FY 2012-13
Diagram of 1995 Foundation Program as Amended in 2007
Pupil
Count by
Grade
by
Building
Site
Variable Divisor by Grade. Regular Education Teacher Units Earned
includes Weighted ADM in Divisors to provide for funding for Special
Education and Vocational Education which may be changed annually.
Regular
(+)
Education
Teacher Units
Earned
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Accreditation Standards .
Salary weights for instructional support teacher units may be changed
annually.
Instructional
(+)
Support
Teacher Units
Earned
(=)
Salary Extensions
Cost Factors:
I. Salary
Allocations
Years of
Experience
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
Type of Certificate
2
3
4
1
BS
MS
6Y
0,1,2
3,4,5
6,7,8
9,10,11
12,13,14
15,16,17
18,19,20
21,22,23
24,25,26
27 +
DO
III. Other
Current
Expense
II. Benefits for
Teachers
ND
Category
FICA
Medicare
UC
TRS
PEEHIP
Leave
(+)
Factor
%
%
%
%
$
$
Dollar Amount
Specified in
Annual ETF
Appropriations
Act
IV. Classroom
Support
Textbooks
Library Enhancement
Professional Development
Technology
Classroom Materials &
Supplies
Common Purchase Fund
(+)
(+)
(+)
(=)
Total School System
Foundation Program Cost
(+)
Subtract Required
Local Effort
(-)
Also know n as "chargeback"
(=)
Balance of Foundation
Program Cost from ETF
Note: Required Local Effort
or Chargeback is equal to the
equivalent of 10.0 mills of
school tax district ad valorem
tax (see Revenue Code
6210). Not the same as
Amendment 778.
Note: Allocation of Current Teacher Units not Included in this Flowchart but are in Foundation Program.
Prepared by Ira W. Harvey, Decision Resources LLC
(balance of page left intentionally blank)
43
Table 3-1
Foundation Program Divisors, FY 2008-09 to FY 2012-13
Grade Act 2008 - 552 Act 2009 - 339 Act 2010 - 610 Act 2011 - 655 Act 2012 - 569
Divisors
FY 2008-09
FY 2009-10
FY 2010-11
FY 2011-12
FY 2012-13
K
13.80
13.80
13.80
14.25
14.25
1
13.80
13.80
13.80
14.25
14.25
2
13.80
13.80
13.80
14.25
14.25
3
13.80
13.80
13.80
14.25
14.25
4
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.85
21.85
5
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.85
21.85
6
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.85
21.85
7
20.10
20.00
20.00
20.45
20.45
8
20.00
18.00
20.00
20.45
20.45
9
20.10
18.00
18.00
18.45
18.45
10
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.45
18.45
11
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.45
18.45
12
18.00
18.00
18.00
18.45
18.45
Otherwise the 1995 Foundation Program is designed for Horizontal Equity (equal treatment of
equals) only. These divisors are defined as including teacher units for (1) Regular Education,
(2) Special Education, and for (3) Vocational Education by program function. The incidence of
need for special and vocational education is defined by the Legislature as being normally
distributed statewide and thus is a proportionately equal educational cost reimbursement to all
local boards of education.
The 1995 Foundation Program is a statement of the cost as determined annually by the
Legislature to provide educational opportunity for all public school students of the state. It is
reimbursement for prior year expenditures since prior year ADM and placement of certificated
personnel on the minimum salary matrix are the inputs. Without any other standard to
determine or evaluate cost, the annual appropriations by the Legislature represent the state
standard for adequacy. Since the teacher unit is the basis for determining and allocating cost to
local boards of education, all of the necessary costs to support a classroom teacher are
allocated with each teacher unit allocated. The General Flowchart of the 1995 Foundation
Program is found in Figure 3-1 which follows. Each divisor is understood to contain teacher
units to be provided for all three programs – Regular Education, Special Education, and
Vocational Education.
Special Education Adjustment of Divisor
Regular teacher unit divisors are adjusted for special education. The adjustment is
statutorily defined as 5.0% of average daily membership (ADM) weighted 2.5 in all grades. This
means that the divisor must be adjusted by 5 times 2.5 or 12.5%. Therefore, the stated divisor to
adjust for special education to get the residual divisor for the regular education program must be
multiplied by 1.125 or 112.5%. In Table 3-2 below, several examples are demonstrated for the
effect of the inclusion of special education funding in the stated divisors for a K-3 classroom. In
Column A, the divisors for FY 2012-13 are one earned classroom teacher for each 1.45 ADM
for the first 20 scholastic days of the school year. In Column B whether the ADM is 14.45 or
142.45, or 570.00, it is divided by 14.45 to calculate the earned teacher units shown in Column
C.
44
Section 16-13-232 (b), Code of Alabama 1975, states that the divisors will be weighted
for all grades for special education for a full-time equivalent of 5.0% weighted at 2.5 times the
regular student weight. This means that the factor for special education in Column D is
12.50%. Multiplying this amount of 12.50% (5 x 2.5) times the ADM in Column B yields the
calculated ADM for special education to be served in Column E. No stipulation is made on
local boards as to how this service shall be delivered. These weights by statute are required to
be recommended annually to the Governor by the State Board of Education. Thus incidence of
special education needs in the respective school systems of the state is not recognized.
Table 3-2
Adjustment of Divisor for Special Education for FY 2012-13
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
K-3
Weighting
Fixed Assum e Total
Percent of Factor for
Factor
Calculated
Percent
Divisor First 20 Earned Students
Special
Special
by
Days
Teacher for Special Education Special Education
Grade
ADM
Units
Eduction
Students Education
ADM
14.25
14.25
1.00
5.00%
2.50
12.50%
1.78
I
J
K
L
Sum of
Special
Education
& Regular
ADM
16.031
Percent
Teacher
Units Set
Aside for
Special
Education
11.11%
Percent
Teacher
Units
Rem aining
for Regular
Education
88.89%
Regular
Students
for
Regular
Teacher
16.03125
14.25
142.50
10.00
5.00%
2.50
12.50%
17.81
160.31
11.11%
88.89%
16.03125
14.25
570.00
40.00
5.00%
2.50
12.50%
71.25
641.25
11.11%
88.89%
16.03125
To find the total ADM which is to be served by the teacher units earned in Column C,
add together the regular ADM found in Column B and the special education ADM found in
Column E. Column F is the total ADM to be served. Column G is the percent of the ADM to
be served that is imputed to be for special education purposes, and Column H is the percent of
the ADM to be served that is imputed to be for regular education. As is readily seen, the
percentages are identical whether the calculation is for ADM of 14.25, 142/5, or 570. Since the
percentage of the divisor which is imputed to be available for regular classroom purposes in all
cases is 88.89%, each teacher must serve 16.03 regular education students as found in
Column I. This is the effective classroom ratio since 11.11% of the teacher unit is considered
to be available for special education purposes. Please note that actual class size as calculated
from state units only would be greater on average as ADM is not ideally distributed by school
site. This is often referred to as an outcome of diseconomy of scale.
The importance of this calculation is that the 1995 Foundation Program recognizes the
importance of weighting student educational needs. The unfortunate aspect of this particular
methodology is that it assumes that each local board of education and each school site has the
same educational cost for serving exceptional students as every other school site in the state on a
proportional basis. The divisor is not the number of students that each teacher will have in
the regular classroom since special education programs and students must be served from
this funding.
Vocational Education Adjustment of Divisor
A similar adjustment for funding vocational education was created based upon 7.4% ADM
weighted 1.4 in grades 7 and 8 and 16.5% ADM weighted 2.0 in grades 9 - 12. This adjustment is
also found in Section 16-13-232 (b), Code of Alabama 1975. Therefore, the stated divisor must
be increased by (7.4%) x (1.4) or 10.36% in grades 7 - 8 and (16.5%) x (2) or 33.00% to get the
45
equivalent divisor for the regular education program. These weights are also recommended
annually by the State Board of Education and have remained unchanged. Vocational Education
(Career Technical Education) is included in the divisors, and the incidence of vocational
education needs is not recognized.
Class Size Caps Imposed By State Board of Education
The State Board of Education on September 11, 1997 approved maximum classroom sizes
or caps for local school classrooms by Resolution as follows in Table 3-3. These class caps do
not include classes in physical education, musical performing groups, ROTC, or typing. Such
classes were limited to 1,000 student contacts per week.
Table 3-3
Classroom Caps Approved by State Board of Education Resolution
Grade
Divisor
K-3
4-6
7-8
9-12
17.80
26.00
29.00
29.00
The State Board of Education later declared that these caps are not limits as long as the local
board of education apportions the teacher units annually to each local school site on the basis
they were earned through calculations based upon prior year ADM. The State Superintendent
of Education can grant waivers for these class caps on a case-by-case basis. Obviously the
nature of each school site’s student population and their appropriate educational needs changes
from year to year. The State Board of Education requires approval by the State Department of
Education for local boards to match teacher units annually with the educational needs of
students. Local boards are not required to employ additional local teachers to meet these caps
if placement (with waiver) regulations are met.
Instructional Support Teacher Units
The 1995 Foundation Program also provides for the allocation of Instructional Support
Units that are earned for the positions of (a) principal, (b) assistant principal, (c) counselors,
and (d) librarians. These units are added to a school's classroom teacher units based on
accreditation standards of the Commissions comprising the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools or as otherwise determined by an accreditation system adopted by the State Board
of Education (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-232).
Current Teacher Units
An amount is calculated for current teacher units based upon comparison of grade-bygrade membership for the first 20 scholastic days after Labor Day of the current and prior school
year. The change in membership on a grade-by-grade basis divided by the appropriate divisor
yields the positive and negative changes in earned teacher units. The sum of these changes by
grade shall determine if current units are earned by a local school system. No current units are
earned by a local school system if the sum of changes by grade is equal to or less than zero.
However, the ETF funding for this purpose is determined annually by recommendation of the State
Board of Education and as appropriated by the Legislature.
46
The determination of the dollar value of a current teacher unit is defined as the average
dollar value of a teacher unit in the current foundation program. The distribution of current teacher
units is due by December 1 of each fiscal year. If the number of estimated current teacher units is
inadequate to fulfill the amount of current teacher units actually earned, then the allocation due
each local school system shall be prorated to the funds actually available. Should the number of
current teacher units actually earned be less than the estimated amount, then the estimated
amount in excess of the earned amount shall be distributed to all local school systems as an
increase in Other Current Expense as in the 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. If however, there
are insufficient state funds set aside for the next fiscal year, 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 of growth.
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 calculated at the building site level: (1) Salaries; (2) Fringe Benefits;
(3) Instructional Support; and (4) Other Current Expense.
(1) Salaries
Salary Matrix – State Salary Allocation. The 1995 Foundation Program uses a salary matrix for
reimbursement of teachers’ salaries by educational attainment and years of service. The degree
levels included are bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, six-year or educational specialist degree,
and the doctoral degree. In addition, provision is made for non-degree personnel at the bachelor’s
level for five types of educational attainment. The experience adjustment is based upon each three
years of experience for a maximum total of 27 years. After teacher reaches this final step at 27
years of service, there is no further advancement of salary with service time. This creates an
overall 5 x 10 salary matrix. The relationship between cells is recommended annually by the State
Board of Education and approved by the Legislature.
Initially, the matrix calculated a salary allocation schedule from which each local board 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 local salary schedule, to
hire additional teachers, or to hire teacher aids. This flexibility was removed in 1997. Each
local board of education is required to develop a 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 with 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 Matrix – 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
additional salary allocation of one percent of salaries; however, for FY 2012-13, this statute was
47
ignored. This additional allocation for salaries is actually a categorical aid program outside the
1995 Foundation Program Calculations. The salary matrix is now the minimum state salary
schedule as seen in Table 3-4 based upon a per diem amount for 187 contract days. Teachers
are paid by a daily rate.
Table 3-4
1995 Foundation Program Minimum State Salary Schedule for FY 2012-13
< 3 yrs
< 6 yrs
< 9 yrs
< 12 yrs
< 15 yrs
< 18 yrs
< 21 yrs
< 24 yrs
< 27 yrs
27+ yrs
Bachelor
Master
6-Year
Doctoral
BS
MS
6Y
DO
ND
$36,144
$39,756
$41,497
$42,053
$42,818
$43,794
$44,360
$44,926
$45,461
$45,997
$41,564
$45,720
$47,721
$48,362
$49,238
$50,364
$51,012
$51,666
$52,201
$52,737
$44,818
$49,297
$51,470
$52,148
$53,093
$54,305
$55,005
$55,708
$56,245
$56,780
$48,071
$52,877
$55,191
$55,932
$56,949
$58,244
$58,999
$59,752
$60,288
$60,824
$36,144
$39,756
$41,497
$42,053
$42,818
$43,794
$44,360
$44,926
$45,461
$45,997
Non-Degree
Note: Non-degree for career-tech teachers is the same as for a Bachelor's Degree Teacher
The above salaries are for a 187 day work period. For FY 2012-13, the 180 minimum
student contact days may be obtained by fewer days which total 1,080 hours (six instructional
hours per day). Additional days worked beyond this number will require an additional per diem
allotment; conversely should days be reduced, total salaries will be proportionately reduced. In
addition, all teachers employed above those earned in the calculation of the 1995 Foundation
Program from whatever fund source paid will be required to be placed on the same schedule and
given the same pay raises and other compensation as otherwise provided.
(2) Fringe Benefits
Fringe benefit allocations are calculated either as a percent of salary or by a fixed
amount per teacher by building site as a companion cost to salaries. These benefit programs
are administered at the state level, and applicable rates are approved annually by the
Legislature. These factors are adjusted annually to reflect cost changes in the operation of the
various programs. FICA and Medicare are obviously set by federal regulation. Teachers’
Retirement System (TRS) and Public Education Employees Health Insurance Program
(PEEHIP) rates are set annually by action of their respective Boards as a request to the
Legislature. The Legislature then determines the rates it will approve and enrolls them in the
annual education appropriations bill. Salaries and thus benefits are based upon a state
mandated minimum 187 day employment contract.
For FY 2011-12 and thereafter, however, the Legislature by statute (Act 2011-676)
increased the TRS employee contribution from the historical 5.0% to 7.5% effective October 1,
2012, and thus enrolled a corresponding reduction in employer cost (local boards of education)
in the Education Appropriations Act. In addition, the Legislature by statute (Act 2011-704)
introduced a new sliding scale for PEEHIP for costs to non-Medicare eligible retirees and
reduced the employer rate in Education Appropriations Act. The current rates for TRS include
state funding for cost-of-living allowances for retirees. The current rates for PEEHIP include an
allowance for retirees.
48
The Unemployment Compensation annual cost rate is set by the State Insurance
Commission but is also fixed in the annual Education Appropriations Act. Leave benefits are
based upon two personal and five sick leave days per teacher reimbursed at a rate of $60.00
per day. In addition, these rates apply to all locally funded employees. The following Table 3-5
lists the benefits and rates for FY 2012-13:
Table 3-5
Fringe Benefits in 1995 Foundation Program for FY 2012-13
Fringe Benefits
Factor
1. FICA
6.2000%
2. Medicare
1.4500%
3. Unemployment Compensation 0.1250%
4. PEEHIP Amount per Month
$714.00
5. TRS
10.080%
6. Number Days Sick Leave
Sick Leave per Day
7. Number Days Personal Leave
Personal Leave per Day
5
$60.00
2
$60.00
Any locally funded certificated employee must be paid at least the state minimum salary
schedule for 187 days and a pro rata amount for any contract days in excess of 187 from local
funds. In addition, any locally funded teacher will have their fringe benefits paid at the same rate
as for foundation program teachers.
(3) Classroom Instructional Support
Classroom Instructional Support includes the following six items of expenditure that existed
prior to 1995 as categorical aid programs. These were consolidated in the 1995 Foundation
Program into a single cost factor.
1. Textbooks. The costs for student textbooks are calculated on a per student basis, the
same basis as for calculating teacher units. A recommendation is made by the State Board of
Education on an annual basis for the amount per child for textbooks. This amount is $31.35 per
student in ADM for FY 2012-13.
2. Library Enhancement. A uniform amount is multiplied by the number of teacher units
earned. The appropriation is for K-12 Public School Library/Media Centers and may be spent for
book binding, repair, CD ROMs, computer software, computer equipment, cataloging, audio-visual
materials, newspapers, magazines, recordings, and video tapes. This amount was set at $0.00
per teacher unit for FY 2012-13.
3. Classroom Materials and Supplies. Classroom materials and supplies are set as a
uniform amount per earned teacher unit. These funds must be expended in accordance with a
plan developed by a school’s faculty. This amount was set at $300.00 per teacher unit for FY
2012-13 as a minimum amount by Act 2012-414 approved at the 2012 Regular Session of the
Legislature.
4. Professional Development. Professional development funds are set as a uniform
amount per earned teacher unit and may be used for individual or collective activities. This amount
was set at $0.00 per teacher unit for FY 2012-13.
49
5. Technology. Technology is set up as a uniform amount per earned teacher unit and is
to be used for the implementation and ongoing support of educational technology. This amount
was set at $0.00 per teacher unit for FY 2012-13.
6. Common Purchases. Common Purchases is set up as a uniform amount per earned
teacher unit and is to be used in a pool by teachers of a school site to purchase support such as a
copy machine lease and supplies. This amount was set at $0.00 per teacher unit for FY 2012-13.
The sum of these six categories constitutes a local school's allotment for Classroom
Instructional Support. Each of these amounts, with the exception of the textbook allocation,
must be provided for each locally funded and federally funded teacher unit. The dollar amount
has been reduced sequentially by the Legislature since FY 2007-08 which was the peak year.
This reduction has been reflecting deteriorating financial conditions caused by reduced ETF
revenues, proration and the Rolling Reserve Revenue Cap. Many of these expenditures have
been absorbed by local boards of education. Restoration of these state cuts in the near future
may not be possible.
(4) Other Current Expense
The last cost factor, "Other Current Expense," is unrestricted revenues to local boards of
education to provide funding for administrative costs, additional salary support for principals and
other administrative staff, support personnel salaries and fringe benefits, salaries above the
allocation amount, fringe benefits for local funded education personnel, additional teachers,
central office costs, utilities, facility maintenance, travel, and any other expense incurred in the
normal operation of the day school program, basically anything the local boards of must budget to
implement state rules and regulations. This amount was set at $15,265.00 per teacher unit for FY
2012-13.
These unrestricted state revenues may be expended by the local board of education for
any legal purpose. This is the only major state categorical aid allocation which the local board of
education has some flexibility in budgeting. However, unlike other cost factors of the 1995
Foundation Program, this cost factor has no underlying basis of calculation of cost. It is at the sole
discretion of the Legislature annually.
Total Cost of the 1995 Foundation Program
The sum of the four cost factors by school site represents the foundation program cost
for that school. The sum of the school sites constituting a local school system is the foundation
program cost for that local school system. From this total cost of the Program is subtracted the
Required Local Effort funds or Chargeback. This is the equivalent yield from local tax-based
revenues of 10.0 mills of school district ad valorem tax school statewide calculated for each
local board of education. This statewide chargeback for FY 2012-13 was $531,302,970. Note
that these revenues never leave the local school system, but are required expenditures by local
board of education for the purposes of the 1995 Foundation Program.
The balance of the funding due the 1995 Foundation Program (state share) is annually
appropriated from the Education Trust Fund (ETF). Although the foundation program cost is
calculated for each local school site, the state amount from the ETF is distributed on an equal
monthly basis to the local school system. The ETF allocation is requested monthly by the State
50
Superintendent of Education, and the State Comptroller distributes the amount by electronic
transfer as soon in the month as tax receipts are available.
Required Local Effort in the 1995 Foundation Program
Local fiscal capacity is measured by one variable - the yield of 1.0 mill of school tax
district ad valorem tax systemwide. Assessed valuation data by local school systems is not
collected at the state level for use by the State Department of Education (SDE). The proxy for
appraised or assessed valuation is the yield of 1.0 mill of the school tax district ad valorem tax
systemwide that is used since exemptions may be applied to the countywide property tax as
well as varying costs of collection. Alabama’s wealth index for each local school system is that
local school system’s share of a mathematically created statewide 1.0 mill ad valorem tax by
school tax district systemwide (and since the number of required equivalent mills is 10.0, this
would be a 10.0 mill statewide school tax district ad valorem tax).
In order for a local school system to participate in the 1995 Foundation Program, the
appropriate local governing body must insure that the local school system is receiving an
amount of local tax receipts equal to ten mills of school tax district ad valorem tax systemwide.
This is the required local taxation. This is also the amount that is the chargeback or required
local effort (sometimes referred to as local share) in the 1995 Foundation Program (Code of
Alabama 1975, Sections 16-13-231(b) (1)a and 16-13-237). All of these terms are defined in
the following Table 3-6:
Table 3-6
Definition of Terms Relating to Local School System Tax Revenues
1. Tax Capacity – In Alabama, this is defined for a local school system as the yield of one mill of school tax district ad
valorem tax and is expressed in dollars. This value, however, is not a measure of the Tax Wealth of a local school system.
2. Wealth of a Local School System – In Alabama, the wealth of a local school system is measured by the yield of one
mill of local school tax district tax divided by the number of students enrolled in Average Daily Membership. This definition
is used in the allocation of the Foundation Program and the Capital Outlay Allocation.
3. Tax Effort – The degree to which the tax capacity of a local school system is utilized. In other states, this is usually
measured in terms of tax rates. In Alabama, the measure is in terms of number of equivalent mills of tax-based revenues.
4. Required Local Effort – The amount of required local taxation which is calculated as being available for the funding of
state educational purposes. In a foundation program, this is the chargeback of the amount subtracted from the total
calculated cost of the state required educational program. These revenues are restricted to accomplish only state
educational purposes. Chargeback Required to Participate in Foundation Program plus Local Match to
Participate in Guaranteed Tax Yield Program
5. Required Local Taxation – The tax rate (specified tax rate to be levied by tax type) or tax yield (amount of tax yield
measured by an index of wealth) which must be levied on behalf of a local board of education in order to participate in the
state financial aid programs (actually receive the state allocations). Amendment 778 Requires the Levy and Collection
of 10.0 Mills of Ad Valorem Tax and Section 16-13-231 Requires the Levy and Collection of the Equivalent of 10.0
Mills of School Tax District Ad Valorem Taxes from Tax-Based Local Revenues
6. Unrestricted Local Taxation – The tax revenues or rate of taxation available to a local board of education over and
beyond those amounts necessary to meet required state matches and which can be used by local boards of education for
local purposes.
51
Required Local Taxation
For a local school system to participate in the allocation of the Public School Fund from
the statewide 3.0 mill ad valorem tax (the Capital Purchase Program Allocation), each local
board must provide a local match. This allocation is also based upon the same yield of 1.0 mill
of school district ad valorem tax. However, this amount of local taxation is not required to be
levied and collected at the local level by statute (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-234(e)).
Therefore, required local taxation is numerically less than required local effort in Alabama.
Ten Mills of School District Tax or Its Tax-Based Equivalent
The requirement of the State of Alabama that 7.0 mills of local property tax must be
levied and collected first begun in 1935 was repealed in 1980. It was replaced with the current
requirement of the equivalent of 10.0 mills of school district ad valorem tax from any tax-based
source. In 1969, the Legislature authorized through general legislation the levy and collection
of the franchise, excise, and privilege license taxes for local school funding purposes (Sections
40-12-4, 11-51-90, and 11-51-200). These could be levied by resolution of the county
commission or the city council. Local school systems could meet their required local taxation
minimums from any tax-based revenue source. Currently, local tax effort for the purpose of
accountability is measured in terms of the number of equivalent mills reported by the following
formula in Figure 3-2:
Figure 3-2
Calculation of Equivalent Mills
Local Tax-Based Revenues
Equivalent Mills =
Yield of 1.0 Mill of School District Tax
Amendment 778, Approved November 7, 2006
Prior to the approval by the voters of the State on November 7, 2006 (proclaimed ratified
12-4-2006), of the constitutional amendment entitled “Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of Alabama 1901 to provide for a statewide minimum levy and collection,
commencing with the tax year beginning October 1, 2006, and without limit as to time, of 10.0
mills of ad valorem property tax in each school district in the State (Acts of Alabama, 2005215),” which is also known as “The Representative Nelson Starkey Act of 2005 (Acts of
Alabama, 2006-443),” there was no statutory requirement for any specific type of taxation to be
levied and collected by local boards of education in order to participate in the Foundation
Program of 1995. Any requirement for ad valorem tax had been repealed by the Legislature in
1980.
This Amendment now appears as Section 269.08 of the Official Recompilation of the
Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended. Since there was no state requirement for any
local ad valorem tax to be levied and collected, many local boards of education were still
collecting the 7.0 mills first required back in 1916. Since compliance with budgeting the
proceeds of the equivalent of 10.0 mills of ad valorem tax was a statutory requirement, the
shortfall between whatever local ad valorem tax was levied and collected and the amount 10.0
mills would have produced was generally derived from sales tax; a major problem developed.
52
Property tax wealth could rise faster than sales tax revenues and thus increase difficulty in
providing local revenues for ad valorem taxes not levied and collected. This Amendment 778
leveled the playing field to guarantee each local board would receive not fewer than 10.0 mills of
ad valorem tax levied in each school tax district of the local school system.
This also
guaranteed a degree of taxpayer equity.
Children With Disabilities and Gifted Children – Funding in the 1995 Foundation Program
Prior to the 1995 Education Finance Reform Legislation, Special Education was funded
as a categorical aid program. The 1995 Foundation Program absorbed the funding formerly
provided for Special Education and incorporated that funding by lowering the divisors for
earning Regular Classroom Teachers. No statutes governing the required provision of special
education services were modified in 1995. However, the state statutes defining services which
must be provided exception children remained unchanged.
State Law Mandating Education for Exceptional Children Unchanged in1995
The Legislature enacted the “Alabama Exceptional Child Education Act” in 1971. Its
provisions for allocating special education teacher units to local boards of education were
amended in 1981 and defined the student load which would earn a teacher unit. These
included one for each group of eight to 15 exceptional children, whether in a special class or by
on-site instruction to home bound students or hospitalized students, and for students in public
State institutions. Twenty percent of teacher units so earned were required to be used for the
purpose of instruction of gifted children. The provisions for teacher units and for setting aside of
teacher units for gifted children were repealed by the 1995 Foundation Program Law, while
leaving the mandate to provide appropriate instruction intact (Section 16-39-7, Code of Alabama
1975). The requirement of services to the intellectually gifted would remain in the Code also.
Appropriate Instruction to be Provided Exceptional Children
The statutory mandate for providing appropriate instruction and special services to
exceptional children was left unchanged. This statement of the Legislature as state law is
specific that funding will be provided to provide appropriate instruction of exceptional children.
This mandate follows.
§ 16-39-3. Education required for exceptional children; source of funds.
Each school board shall provide not less than 12 consecutive years of appropriate
instruction and special services for exceptional children, beginning with those six years of age, in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Such public instruction and special services shall
be made available at public expense for each school year to exceptional children as provided
herein. The funds for such instruction and special services shall be derived from state, county,
municipal, district, federal or other sources or combinations of sources. Each school board shall
set aside from its revenues from all such sources such amounts as are needed to carry out the
provisions of this chapter, if such funds are available without impairment of regular classes and
services provided for nonexceptional children. If sufficient funds are not available to a school board
to provide fully for all the provisions of this chapter as well as the educational needs of
nonexceptional children, such board must prorate all funds on a per capita basis between
exceptional and nonexceptional children. No matriculation or tuition fees or other fees or charges
shall be required or asked of exceptional children or their parents or guardians, except such fees or
charges as may be charged uniformly of all public school pupils (Code of Alabama 1975, Section
16-39-3).
53
Special Services to be Provided Exceptional Children
The Legislature further defined the Special Services to be provided:
§ 16-39-2. Definitions
(7) SPECIAL SERVICES. Services relating to instruction of exceptional children (but not
including the instruction itself) including, but not limited to: administrative services; transportation;
diagnostic and evaluation services; social services; physical and occupational therapy; job
placement; orientation and mobility training; braillist services and materials; typists and readers for
the blind; special materials and equipment; and such other similar personnel, services, materials,
and equipment as may from time to time be approved by regulations adopted hereunder by the
State Board of Education (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-39-2).
Definition of Children to be Served
The 1995 revisions also left intact the definitions of “Exceptional Children” first
developed by the Legislature in 1971 eligible to receive these services:
§ 16-39-2. Definitions
(1) EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN. Persons between the ages of six and 21 years who have
been certified under regulations of the State Board of Education by a specialist as being unsuited
for enrollment in regular classes of the public schools or who are unable to be educated or trained
adequately in the regular programs including, but not limited to: the mildly and moderately to
severely retarded, and also the profoundly retarded; the speech impaired; the hearing impaired,
deaf, and partially hearing; the blind and vision impaired; the crippled and those having other
physical handicaps not otherwise specifically mentioned herein; the emotionally conflicted; those
with special learning disabilities; the multiple handicapped; and the intellectually gifted (Code of
Responsibilities of State Board of Education
The Legislature also made it clear that this was a state-mandated and governed
program and that responsibility for the operation of the program was delegated to the State
Board of Education by the following statutory requirement:
§16-39-5. Responsibilities of State Board of Education.
The State Board of Education shall adopt regulations covering:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The qualifications of specialists for each type of exceptionality and standards for
certification of exceptional children;
Minimum standards of instruction and special services to be provided for each type of
exceptionality at each grade level;
Reasonable qualifications for teachers, instructors, therapists and other personnel needed
to work with exceptional children;
Guidelines for suitable five-year incremental plans for implementation of the program set
forth in this chapter for various types of typical situations likely to be encountered by
school boards in the State of Alabama; and
Such other rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate for carrying out the
purposes of this chapter (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-39-5).
54
Responsibilities of Local Boards of Education
The combination of state and federal statutory requirements for providing services to
exceptional children places the financial and programmatic burden squarely on local boards of
education. While such services as are necessary must be provided, with the exception of the
line item appropriation for At-Risk children, the State of Alabama in its funding scheme does not
recognize incidence of special education needs.
The 1995 Foundation Program is the source of funding for educational program costs for
children with disabilities and gifted children and is neutral, as previously explained, on the
incidence of special education needs. The 1995 Foundation Program assumes that such
incidence of these educational needs by program is normally distributed across the state and
each local board of education has equal state funding on a population- or census-based theory.
Therefore, a local city board of education must critically review any policy approved which will
allow children living outside the municipal boundaries of the school system to attend because of
unanticipated and un-reimbursed cost for special education services as may be required.
The overall conclusion regarding the current status of special education legislation in the
State of Alabama is that state funding is inadequate. All provisions constituting federal
mandates for services were unchanged and trumped any state laws. Federal funding for
special education has been and still is inadequate to meet the statutory needs for services. In
addition, future Federal funding may be in jeopardy due to pending cuts in the Federal Budget.
Alabama has historically had strong special education laws which are still in force and
which are underfunded. Unfortunately, Alabama has no scheme to measure needs of
exceptional education and assumes that funding as provided through the decreased divisors
meets such needs. Alabama does not identify for state funding purposes the exceptionalities
and childcount by such exceptionalities as defined by state law. In addition, there is no
evidence by the childcount for federal special education purposes to further conclude that such
needs are normally distributed.
B. STATE CATEGORICAL AID PROGRAMS
Capital Purchase Allocation from the Public School Fund
In order to provide a continuing revenue stream for local boards of education for capital
improvements, the vast majority of the Public School Fund (3.0 mill statewide ad valorem tax) is
distributed on a local match basis which takes into account the wealth of each local board of
education in terms of the yield of one mill of school district ad valorem tax per pupil in ADM. The
determination of wealth is based on the prior fiscal year tax yield and the prior year's first 20
scholastic days’ ADM after Labor Day. The allotment of state funds is through a guaranteed tax
yield calculation. This is a type of state aid program in which each local school system is
guaranteed the same or constant yield per unit of tax effort per unit of educational need. Thus the
combination of state allocation and local required match is the same for every ADM in every local
school system of the State. This categorical aid program is known as the 1995 Capital Purchase
Program.
The Education Finance Reform Legislation of 1995 re-designated the Public School Fund
from being appropriated for “the payment of teachers” to an allocation for capital purchase uses as
follows:
55
§ 16-13-234. Allocation of funds.
(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that funds shall be provided to local boards of
education in addition to Foundation Program funds to provide continuing funding to provide for
soundness and adequacy of public school facilities in Alabama. To that end the remainder of the
Public School Fund after deducting the costs pursuant to subsections (a) and (c) shall be available
to the local boards of education for capital outlay projects, including the planning, construction,
reconstruction, enlargement, improvement, repair or renovation of public school facilities, for the
purchase of land for public school facilities and for the acquisition and/or purchase of education
technology and equipment.
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature that the distribution of capital funds for the purpose of
capital purchases from the Public School Fund be made to all school systems, require a variable
matching with local funds based on yield per mill per average daily membership of district property
tax, and guarantee the same amount per student in each system for capital purchases from the
total of state and matching local funds. The State Superintendent of Education shall allocate the
available funds pursuant to the rules adopted by the State Board of Education. Also, to receive
funds from this appropriation, the local board of education must develop a comprehensive, long
range capital plan addressing the facility, educational technology and equipment needs of the local
board of education, pursuant to the rules adopted by the State Board of Education. The goal of this
program is to have each local board of education complete its comprehensive, long range capital
plan and begin making satisfactory progress in implementing the plan for providing adequate public
school facilities for all students (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-234).
The formulation follows for the calculation of the state and local shares which is functionally
a guaranteed tax yield program. The outcome of this type of calculation and state aid formula is
that each child counted in ADM has the same amount of funds available for capital purchase needs
as every other school child in the state (that is the sum of the state capital purchase allocation plus
the local share which is required to be contributed). The formulas for the determination of the state
and local share follow.
State Funds for Capital Purchase Program
The state share from the Public School Fund is determined by the following formula:
State Share
=
Z [(KM)-Y] A where
Z
=
K
M
Y
=
=
=
A
=
number of guaranteed mills (varies annually by revenue
estimated to be available to the Public School Fund)
2.0 (fixed by annual SBE regulation)
maximum yield per mill over all local boards (varies annually)
yield per mill per ADM for a local board of education (varies
annually)
prior year ADM for a local board of education (varies annually)
A pure guaranteed tax yield program would not reflect 2.0 times the maximum yield. Were
this multiplier not included, then the top ranked local school system in wealth would receive no
matching funds. Therefore, additional funding would be available for distribution to the less wealthy
school systems. Inclusion of this multiplier favors the wealthy school systems. The more funding
that is available for this program, the greater the number of mills that can be equalized.
The result of setting K = 2.0 is a flat grant allocation per student in ADM to each local board
of education equal to 50% of the total allocation and a guaranteed tax yield grant which is based on
local tax capacity equal to 50% of the total allocation. Therefore, only ½ of the allocation is
56
distributed based upon local tax capacity. This feature diminishes the equalizing capacity of the
allocation.
Local Board Funds for Capital Purchase Program
The formula for calculating local matching funds which the local board must certify as
available and which can be current debt service is as follows:
Local Share
=
Z * Y * A where
Z
=
Y
=
A
=
number of guaranteed mills (varies annually by revenue
estimated to be available to the Public School Fund))
yield per mill per ADM for a local board of education (varies
annually
prior year ADM for a local board of education (varies annually)
This means that the local share depends on the number of mills which the state can afford
based upon state ad valorem tax revenues to the PSF annually in the guaranteed tax yield
program. A complete set of calculations for all local public school systems of the state is included
in the Appendices 7-13 and 7-13. This allocation can be used on a pay-as-you-go basis or for a
Pooled Purchase available through the Alabama Public School and College Authority (APSCA)
as authorized by legislation.
However, the Legislature in the 2011 Regular Session amended Section 16-13-234 of
the Code of Alabama 1975 to include the following purpose of expenditure:
“…… for debt payments related to public school facilities, for insuring public school facilities ……
(Acts of the Legislature, 2011-163).”
Therefore, the proceeds of the Public School Fund since April 26, 2011, may be used to make
local debt service payments, freeing up local tax dollars which have been committed to retiring
debt for capital outlay projects. The change was needed because continued proration of the
ETF had produced an unsustainable financial burden on local boards of education.
Jefferson County Schools Participation in APSCA Pooled Purchase Debt Service
The Jefferson County Board of Education has participated in bond issues of the APSCA
of the Revolving Loan Fund for Local Boards of Education. The principal debt and
amortization of the debt which is attributed to the school sites in the City of Gardendale will be
presented in Chapter 5. The majority of the debt which would accompany school sites in the
City of Gardendale is from APSCA Pooled Purchase.
The Alabama Public School and College Authority Issue authorized by the 1998
Legislature authorized the Alabama Public School and College Authority to issue and sell bonds
without express limits as to principal amount to finance loans to local boards of education. “The
Authority is hereby authorized to loan, and each local board of education is hereby authorized to
borrow, such monies under terms and procedures to be established by the Authority (Acts of
Alabama 1998, No. 98-373, p. 38).” These bonds are known as “Pool Bonds” or “Pooled
Purchase Bonds.”
57
Each local board of education so receiving a loan will issue warrants to the Authority at
an interest rate agreed to by the Authority and the local board of education and approved by the
State Superintendent of Education. “No such warrant shall be a general obligation of the local
board of education but shall be payable solely from the distributions of capital funds made to
such local boards of education from the public school fund pursuant to Section 16-13-244, Code
of Alabama 1975 (Acts of Alabama 1998, No. 98-373, pp. 38-39).”
Before the issuance of a debt obligation requiring the approval of the State
Superintendent, a local board of education must approve a binding agreement authorizing the
State Comptroller to intercept and direct certain state allocated funds to satisfy a debt payment
that is due and unpaid. In the binding agreement the local board of education shall agree to
replace the funds withheld to satisfy the debt payment by providing funds legally available for
replacement.
Proceeds of the Pool Bonds must be used first to acquire capital improvements needed
to eliminate portable and sub-standard classrooms and then for other purposes as approved by
the Authority and by the State Superintendent of Education. All proceeds of Pool Bonds
borrowed for purposes of eliminating portable and sub-standard classrooms must be spent
within two years from the date the Pool Bonds are issued. All other proceeds must be spent by
participating boards within three years from the date the Pool Bonds are issued. The statutory
plan for the utilization of Public School Funds by local boards from FY 1995-96 to FY 2010-11
was limited to pay-as-you-go for local capital outlay or participation in an APSCA Pooled
Purchase Bond issue, thus freeing up local revenues pledged for repayment of local debt
issues.
Student Transportation Program
The basic reimbursement strategy for operation of the school transportation program is
unchanged since its inception in 1935, and has been considered to be a fully funded state
mandate. The amount for transportation, however, in actuality has been limited in reimbursement
to the amount included by the Legislature in the annual Education Appropriations Act at their
discretion. The annual transportation allotment to local boards of education, when fully funded, is
able to realize both an allowance for Current Operations and a Fleet Renewal depreciation
allowance. However, past practices of the State Department of Education recommending full
reimbursement of prior year costs of operations appear to have been modified, for some school
systems, to recommend less than 100% cost reimbursement. In fact, new procedures are being
put in place to cap allowable reimbursement to local boards prior to any legislative constraints
being imposed in order to limit appropriations.
Current Operations
In determining the cost of current operations, transported students must live two miles or
more from a school center (the historical limit as to how far a student could walk to school).
However, physically disabled students who live closer shall be included in the determination of
average daily transported students. The school centers must be approved by the State
Superintendent. If safety of children is an issue, the State Superintendent may waive the two mile
limit. This pupil count shall be for the previous year.
The cost per pupil per day is the operating cost of current expenditures, as well as the
depreciation of school buses. FY 1995-96 was the first year in which the total operating cost was
calculated. This included funding for FICA, Unemployment Compensation, TRS, and PEEHIP.
58
For FY 2012-13, the Jefferson County School System has been allocated the amount of
$14,339,805 for operating cost reimbursement from the ETF.
Fleet Renewal
As based upon the age of each school bus in operation, an amount for depreciation is
included in the operating cost. This amount, based on a chassis life of 10 years, is set aside as a
fleet renewal allocation to be expended on for the purchase of new school buses. These funds
may be carried over to future years. For FY 2012-13 for the Jefferson County School System, the
amount of $1,748,307.00 has been allocated for Fleet Renewal. This is being paid for FY 2012-13
through an APSCA Bond Issue. This is based on an annual allotment of $5,588.48 per chassis.
As additional new buses enter the depreciation schedule, this cost should increase; however, the
Legislature may choose an amount each year according to the financial condition of the Education
Trust Fund which may be significantly less than the 1/10th share of estimated replacement cost.
Vehicle liability insurance for employees required to transport pupils
If a city board of education decides to participate in the statewide student
transportation program, they must provide vehicle liability insurance;
§ 16-27-7. Vehicle liability insurance for employees required to transport pupils.
(a) The State Board of Education, each governing board of Alabama's public senior
universities and each city and county board of education shall provide vehicle liability insurance for
bus drivers or any other employee who is required to transport pupils. Said vehicle liability
insurance shall cover personal liabilities for bus drivers or any other employee who is required to
transport pupils. Said liability insurance shall be applicable to moving vehicular accidents only.
(b) School boards and other agencies covered by this section shall be deemed to be in
compliance with the requirements of this section by either purchasing a liability insurance policy
naming drivers as insureds, or if the employing board elects not to purchase a policy, by
reimbursing individual employees for amounts necessary to add "drive other car broad form
liability" riders to their individual vehicle liability insurance policies, to the limits specified by the
employing board or agency (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-27-7).
In Chapter 6, an analysis of the cost to the proposed Gardendale City School System in
excess of state funds appropriated for student transportation services which must be paid from
local sources will be presented. In addition, the debt service on school transportation
equipment which would be transferred to the proposed Gardendale City School System will also
be presented.
Reimbursement for Transportation for Special Education
Transportation for exceptional children must be provided by the local board of education
irrespective of the distance the student lives from the attendance center. The following statute
mandates that at least 80% of the cost of such transportation be provided in the annual
reimbursement for current operations:
§ 16-39-11. Transportation.
When authorized by regulations of the State Board of Education in lieu of the amount
calculated on the basis of average daily membership otherwise authorized by law, there shall be
allowed from the Education Trust Fund appropriation for transportation for each bus used
exclusively for the purpose of transporting eight or more pupils classified as exceptional children
who are unable to ride regular school buses 80 percent of the cost of such transportation, and a
59
proportionate amount shall be allowed for a vehicle used exclusively for the transportation of a
smaller number of exceptional children in average daily membership as prescribed by regulations
of the State Board of Education (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-39-11).
While this amount used to be provided to local boards as a separate allocation, current practice
is to include the number of children transported and the miles traveled in the reports for regular
transportation. Therefore, the transportation of exceptional children is considered as being
reimbursed.
Transportation Supervisor Mandated
In delegating authority to the State Board of Education to prescribe rules and regulations
for the operation of the school transportation system, the Legislature further provided by statute
that all local boards of education (in addition to other entities operating school buses) must
employ a competent supervisor or manager of transportation services, irrespective of whether
the buses are publicly or privately owned (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-27-1). The
Legislature further provided that the State Board of Education require periodic safety inspection
of all vehicles used for school transportation and that provisions be made for special training
and licensing of drivers, whether in public or private employment. However, the cost of a
transportation supervisor is an allowable cost in the annual allocation for current operations.
Furthermore, this position is not one assigned to central office staff or general administrative
services, but rather to Auxiliary Enterprises. Full cost reimbursement of the compensation
costs for this position has been included in Cost of Operations in prior years; however, the SBE
has adopted a new standard of reimbursement only to the maximum allowed in a salary
schedule for the position. The new standards, along with cuts by the Legislature, may only
provide local boards of education 75% reimbursement of their actual transportation costs.
C. LINE ITEM APPROPRIATIONS FOR LOCAL BOARDS OF EDUCATION
In the education appropriations bills approved by the Legislature annually, there are
many line item appropriations for public education which have a statutory origin but for which
the amount of appropriation is on a year-by-year basis at the discretion of the Legislature. A
summary of these appropriations for FY 2012-13 follows in Table 3-7. Since the dollar amount
of appropriation is discretionary, many times the Legislature, in a period in which new ETF
dollars are scarce or in which cuts must be made, chooses to deliberately underfund or cut a
line item funded the prior year.
Line Items With Statutory Authorization
Therefore, a difficulty for budgeting by local boards the programs created by these line
items is the uncertainty of continued funding from year to year. The discrepancy as to amount
to be included as compared to the stated purpose of the program created by the line item may
result in additional local cost from local revenues (an unfunded mandate). For example, the
legislation creating the School Nurses Program creates both an expectation and pressure on
local boards to implement the program at a pace more rapid than appropriations. And since the
line item has no statutory guarantee of funding from year to year, the Legislature may choose to
reduce the line item of appropriation during a year of fiscal exigency, such as for FY 2010-11.
Therefore, the local board of education is left facing a larger unfunded state mandate when local
funds may be similarly in distress. Needless to say, the proposed Gardendale City School
60
System will receive its appropriate share of such legislative appropriations based upon the
language of allocation in the enabling statute.
Table 3-7
Line Item Appropriations from the ETF for FY 2012-13 to
Local Boards of Education with Statutory Authorization
CATEGORICAL AID PROGRAMS
AMOUNT
Transportation
$262,011,132
1. Operating Allocation
262,011,132
2. Fleet Renewal*
Amount Per Chassis
$5,588.48
Number of Chassis
5,905
Salaries - 1% per Act 97-238
At Risk Students Program
20,267,734
School Nurses Program
29,397,520
Supplemental OCE
Technology Coordinator
3,592,920
5,000,000
Career Tech O & M
Total Categorical Aid Programs
320,269,306
*APSCA Bond Issue for FY 2013
State Department of Education (SDE) Line Items
Additional line items may be appropriated annually by the Legislature for programs
which do not have statutory authorization. These are a special grant of the Legislature which
may not be repeated in a subsequent fiscal year due to budget constraints. Rather than being
appropriated directly to local boards of education, these line items are appropriated to the State
Board or State Department of Education for annual distribution based upon procedures which
are determined by the State Department of Education. Of course, the allocation procedures
approved by the State Board of Education, since not set in state statute, can also vary by
budget year. Since they are targeted and restricted funds, they follow school children and
would be distributed as earned to the schools of the proposed Gardendale City School System.
The statewide appropriations for FY 2012-13 follow in Table 3-8. Needless to say, the
proposed Gardendale City School System will receive its appropriate share of such legislative
appropriations based upon the language of allocation in the annual Education Appropriations
Act or by an allocation plan approved by the Alabama State Board of Education.
61
Table 3-8
Line Item Appropriations to State Department of Education
for Allocation to Local Boards of Education for FY 2012-13
Category
State Departm ent of Education
1
Advanced Placement
2
Career Tech. Initiative
3
Children First Program/Children's First Trust Fund
4
Children's Eye Screening
5
Children's Hospital Educational Services
6
Community Education
7
Distance Learning - ACCESS
8
Drop Out Pilot Program
9
English as a Second Language
10 Gifted Education
11 Governor's Academic Program
12 Governor's High Hopes for Students
13 Home Instruction for Parents of Preschoolers
14 Jobs for Alabama Graduates
15 Math/Science/Technology Initiatives
16 National Bd. Prof. Tch. Stds.
17 Preschool Program
18 Reading Initiative
19 Reading is Fundamental
20 Teach for America
21 Teacher Professional Technology Training
22 Teacher/Student Testing
TOTAL SDE TO LOCAL BOARDS OF EDUCATION
62
FY 2012-13 ETF
Appropriations
2,271,179
2,257,967
3,000,000
2,001,079
103,546
588,830
18,516,242
454,808
2,000,000
1,000,000
10,520,981
10,018,083
1,500,000
798,328
28,049,318
10,427,424
1,623,062
58,153,789
30,000
572,193
970,887
6,393,103
$161,250,819.00
4. JEFFERSON COUNTY
SCHOOL SYSTEM TAXES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS
A. GENERAL LAWS FOR COUNTYWIDE TAXES FOR SCHOOL SYSTEMS
Ad Valorem Taxes as School Taxes
Each countywide and tax district school ad valorem tax, like other ad valorem taxes
levied in Alabama, has a separate constitutional authorization. The levy and collection of ad
valorem is, with few exceptions, subject to local referendum. Alabama has school systems,
not school districts. The term school district refers to a taxing district for schools. The ad
valorem taxes for school systems are of two types; the first is countywide, and the second is
school tax district (school tax districts were created in 1916 by Amendment III to the Constitution
of 1901 as amended).
There are five general statewide authorizations. Each school ad valorem tax by any one
of these authorizations, whether countywide or tax district, is levied and collected generally by
the county commission in arrears (Classes I, II, and III) and generally by the Probate Judge
(Class IV) currently. A brief discussion of these taxes and their boundaries, time, rate, and
purpose follows. All of the following taxes defined as school taxes are subject to renewal votes.
They cannot upon referendum be levied and collected for a period exceeding than 30 years.
(1) One-Mill Countywide Ad Valorem Tax
The Constitution of 1901 in Section 269 continued an authorization of a one-mill
countywide school ad valorem tax in existence prior to the ratification of the Constitution of
1901. Levy and collection is dependent upon a local referendum. See Appendix 7-4.
Section 269 - Special county school taxes.
The several counties in this state shall have power to levy and collect a special tax not
exceeding ten cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable property in such counties, for the
support of public schools; provided, that the rate of such tax, the time it is to continue, and the
purpose thereof, shall have been first submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the county, and
voted for by three-fifths of those voting at such election; but the rate of such special tax shall not
increase the rate of taxation, state and county combined, in any one year, to more than one dollar
and twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable property; excluding, however, all
special county taxes for public buildings, roads, bridges, and the payment of debts existing at the
ratification of the Constitution of eighteen hundred and seventy-five. The funds arising from such
special school tax shall be so apportioned and paid through the proper school officials to the
several schools in the townships and districts in the county that the school terms of the respective
schools shall be extended by such supplement as nearly the same length of time as practicable;
provided, that this section shall not apply to the cities of Decatur, New Decatur, and Cullman
(Constitution of 1901, Sec. 269).
Jefferson County has levied this tax (See Table 4-1 which in a following section). This
millage is due to expire 9/30/2020. Note that a super majority of three-fifths of those voting is
necessary for ratification. If there is more than one school system in the county, the tax is
divided among the school systems based on each school system’s proportionate share of the
total Foundation Program allocation to the school systems of the county. As will be explained
in Chapter 5, this study only addresses the existing budgeted share of countywide taxes
63
currently apportioned to the Jefferson County Board of Education which would become
allocated to the proposed Gardendale City School System.
(2) Three-Mill Countywide Ad Valorem Tax
Amendment 3 to the Constitution of 1901 allows counties to levy and collect, upon
approval at a referendum, an additional countywide school tax. The countywide authorization is
found in Section 1 which follows:
Amendment 3 - Special School Tax Amendment.
Article XIX, Section 1. The several counties in the state shall have power to levy and
collect a special county tax not exceeding thirty cents on each one hundred dollars worth of taxable
property in such counties in addition to that now authorized or that may hereafter be authorized for
public school purposes, and in addition to that now authorized under section 260 of article XIV of
the Constitution; provided, that the rate of such tax, the time it is to continue and the purpose
thereof shall have been first submitted to the vote of the qualified electors of the county, and voted
for by a majority of those voting at such election (Constitution of 1901, Amendment 3).
. Jefferson County has levied this tax (reprinted in Appendix 7-5) (See Table 4-1 which
follows). In addition, by the process identified in Amendment 373 to the Constitution of
Alabama of 1901, the millage rate of 3.0 mills has been increased by 2.4 mills to total 5.4 for the
millage authorized under Amendment 3, Section 1. This millage is due to expire 9/30/2020
and is divided among the school systems based on each school system’s proportionate share of
the total Foundation Program allocation to the school systems of the county.
(3) Three-Mill School District Ad Valorem Tax
An additional section to Amendment 3 created the first reference to school ad valorem
tax districts in the Constitution of 1901:
Amendment 3 - Special School Tax Amendment.
Section 2. The several school districts of any county in the state shall have power to levy
and collect a special district tax not exceeding thirty cents on each one hundred dollars worth of
taxable property in such district for public school purposes; provided, that a school district under the
meaning of this section shall include incorporated cities or towns, or any school district of which an
incorporated city or town is a part, or such other school districts now existing or hereafter formed as
may be approved by the county board of education; provided further, that the rate of such tax, the
time it is to continue and the purpose thereof shall have been first submitted to the vote of the
qualified electors of the district and voted for by a majority of those voting at such election; provided
further, that no district tax shall be voted or collected except in such counties as are levying and
collecting not less than a three-mill special county school tax.
Section 3. The funds arising from the special county school tax levied and collected by
any county shall be apportioned and expended as the law may direct, and the funds arising from
the special school tax levied in any district which votes the same independently of the county shall
be expended for the exclusive benefit of the district, as the law may direct (Constitution of 1901,
Amendment 3).
Amendment 3 to the Constitution of 1901 thus allows a county school system to call for
a referendum for citizens of each school tax district to vote upon a school district tax in each of
the tax districts of the county. It is necessary, however, to have more than one school tax
district in a county to have a vote upon a school district tax. If the school tax district were
countywide, then the vote would be upon a countywide tax and not a school district tax
64
(Attorney General’s Report, October 1 to September 30, 1924, pp. 413-414). If a separate
municipal school system exists in a county, then the municipal school tax district and the
balance of the county comprising a school tax district meets the requirement of the law. Should
no municipal school tax district exist, then the county board of education must divide the county
into at least two school tax districts to meet the requirements of the law. In addition, when a city
forms its own separate city school system, the millage rate, time it is to continue, and purpose of
any school tax district millage is automatically applied to the new city school tax district. The
boundaries of the city school tax district are by statute the same as the political boundaries of
the city.
In addition, Section 2 requires that the countywide tax in Section 1 be levied and
collected in order for the school district tax in Section 2 to be levied and collected. However,
this stacking arrangement has been deleted by Amendment 669 to the Constitution of 1901.
Amendment 3 and statutes implementing the provisions of Amendment 3, Section 2, requires
that the tax revenues generated by the school district tax must be spent only in that school tax
district. Jefferson County has levied this tax (See Table 4-1 which follows).
In addition, by the process identified in Amendment 373 to the Constitution of Alabama
of 1901, the millage rate of 3.0 mills has been increased by 2.1 mills to total 5.0 for the millage
authorized under Amendment 3, Section 2. This millage is due to expire 9/30/2020. State law
requiring school tax district funds to be spent only in each school tax district of the state follows:
§16-13-198. Use of district funds.
The funds arising from levying a special tax for school purposes in any school tax district
under the jurisdiction of the county board of education shall be used for the exclusive benefit of the
public schools of such districts; provided, that in any school tax district where such tax is being
levied there is no public school, the funds arising from levying said tax may be used for the purpose
of transporting school children residing in such district to a school located in another district. In the
case of cities and towns under independent boards, said county tax collector shall collect said
taxes and pay over the same to the treasurer of said city or town to be used for the exclusive
benefit of the schools thereof in accordance with the law (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13198).
(4) Five-Mill Special County Tax, Amendment 202
Amendment 202 authorizes county governing bodies to levy a special county tax not to
exceed 5.0 mills for educational purposes. The rate, duration and purpose of the tax must be
approved by a majority of those voting in an election. Because of conflicting language in the
Amendment, it is recommended that both a petition of 200 electors and a request by the local
board of education be made to the county commission for the election. If there is more than one
school system in the county, the tax is divided among the school systems based on each school
system’s proportionate share of the total Foundation Program allocation to the school systems
of the county. Jefferson County has not voted to levy and collect the millage authorized.
(5) Three-Mill Special School District Tax, Amendment 382
In addition to all other taxes authorized, Amendment 382 authorizes the levy of a
special school district tax not to exceed 3.0 mills, provided that the rate, duration and purpose of
the tax are approved by a majority of voters in an election. Because there is no implementation
language in the Amendment, it is recommended that the procedures for implementing
Amendment 3 above should be followed. Jefferson County levies and collects 3.0 mills under
this authorization (see Appendix 7-8). This millage is due to expire 9/30/2035.
65
B. SPECIAL AD VALOREM TAXES FOR
THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
The Jefferson County School System has utilized most of the general statewide
application school ad valorem taxes. However, these only total 15.0 mills and the Jefferson
County School System has 30.1 mills. In addition to the specific constitutional authorizations for
school ad valorem taxes with application discussed above, Jefferson County has utilized a
constitutional amendatory process to increase the rate of the previously approved millages by
the Amendment 373 process. A discussion of this process follows. It is an important tool in
financing public education as it can not only be used to increase the rate of a school tax, but
also a general county tax and a municipal tax.
Amendment 373
Amendment 373 to the Constitution of 1901, otherwise known as the “Lid Bill,” was
approved 1978 in order to comply with a federal court order in the case of Weissinger v. Boswell
in which Alabama’s practice of allowing variable assessment ratios across the state had been
declared unconstitutional. This amendment has commonly been referred to as the “Lid Bill,” but
also known as the Property Tax Relief Laws as six statutes were passed to implement the
constitutional amendment. Amendment 373 does not allow for a referendum on the levy of a
new tax, but rather an increase in the millage rate of a tax already bearing constitutional
approval.
Amendment 373 reduces the steps required by law to increase property taxes as the
cumbersome process to amend the Constitution can be circumvented. Taxing authorities can
increase the rate of an existing tax if they fulfill the following three requirements. However, it
must be noted that under the conditions of the previous constitutional provisions, the County
Commission is compelled to hold a referendum to levy an existing tax (Section 269,
Amendment 3, Amendment 202, and Amendment 382). The County Commission may refuse
to approve the increase requested in (a) which follows should the local board of education so
present a resolution requesting hearing:
(a) Public Hearing. The local taxing authority (in the case of most but not all school
taxes, this is the county commission) conducts a public hearing on the proposed tax
increase (usually at the request of the school board) at which the local taxing authority
formally votes to propose the increase;
(b) Local Legislation. The legislature approves the proposed increase through the
passage of a local act; and
(c) Local Referendum. Voters approve the proposed increase in a local election.
Increasing the rate of an existing tax means that what property taxes are currently levied
and under what authority must be known. When this is not known at the school system level,
the county tax assessor should have this information readily available. This review will help
determine which tax should be increased. Determining the constitutional authority for the
proposed tax to be increased will indicate whether the tax is a county-levied tax (in which case
the taxing authority will be the county commission) or a tax levied by the municipality (in which
case the taxing authority will be the municipal governing body).
66
Each school ad valorem tax for schools expires: unless approved prior to 1901 and
grandfathered in the state constitution, most cannot be levied for longer than 30 years. This
requires that existing property taxes periodically be renewed by voters in an election. It is
pointless to increase the rate of a tax that expires shortly. Each ad valorem tax has a purpose
for which the tax originally was levied. As a general rule, you cannot increase the rate of an
existing tax for a purpose that differs from the purpose for which the tax is now being levied.
However, most school taxes are being levied for general education purposes, which would
permit a multitude of uses for tax revenue.
After identifying the tax, the rate of which you propose increasing (and presumably, the
rate of increase), the school board requests that the local taxing authority conduct a public
hearing. A board resolution requesting that the taxing authority initiate the Lid Bill increase
procedure is not required by the Lid Bill, but the taxing authority may request one. The millage
rates of many ad valorem taxes were increased in the early 1970s under the permissive
provisions of Amendment 325 (also known as the “Reclassification Amendment”) and in the
late 1970s under similar provisions of the Lid Bill; these increases did not require voter approval
and were one-time adjustments. In addition, such one-time rate adjustments were allowed again
by Amendment 373. Because of these increases, the tax commonly known as the 3-mill
countywide tax (Amendment 3) may in fact be levied and collected at a different (and higher)
rate. The board’s legal counsel and the county tax assessor will be helpful in resolving the
confusion that often results from the difference between the tax rate set out in the constitution
and the rate at which a tax is now levied.
The Alabama Attorney General, in an opinion pertaining to an election conducted by a
county commission (Opinion of the Attorney General, Nov. 30, 1993, 94-0067), has stated a
county commission may not authorize more than one election under the authority of the local
act. In other words, if the voters reject the increase, the school board must start the procedure
over, beginning with a public hearing by the taxing authority, the proposal and the local act.
Jefferson County has successfully used this process on two occasions. The same process
could be used again.
One-Half Mill Countywide Ad Valorem Tax, 1890-91
The Legislature of Alabama in the 1890-91 Session, under the provisions of the
Constitution of 1875, passed a local act which authorized the levy and collection of a 0.5 mill
special ad valorem tax “To provide for the better support and maintenance of the Public Schools
of Jefferson County.” This Act provided for the annual levy and collection without limit as to time
of this ad valorem (Acts of Alabama 1890-91, Act Number 203, p. 440 approved February 7,
1891). This special ad valorem tax was “grandfathered” under provisions of the new
Constitution of 1901 and is still levied and collected today, but its rate has been adjusted
upward to 0.7 mills. The provisions of this Act are provided in Appendix 7-3. This levy is
without limit as to time.
Amendment 82: Special Five Mill Countywide Ad Valorem Tax, 1950
On November 7, 1950, the voters of the state of Alabama and the voters of Jefferson
County approved a constitutional amendment to provide for the levy and collection of an
additional 5.0 mill countywide tax for schools in Jefferson County. The levy and collection of
this tax is under the same provisions as those provided for the Amendment 3 School District
Tax. This tax has been adjusted upward and today is levied and collected at the rate of 8.8
67
mills (Constitution of 1901, Amendment 82). The provisions of this Amendment are found in
Appendix 7-6. The levy and collection of this tax is authorized to be levied through the tax
year beginning October 1, 2020.
Amendment 175: Special Five Mill School Tax District Tax, 1961
On December 5, 1961, the voters of the state of Alabama and the voters of Jefferson
County approved a constitutional amendment to provide for the levy and collection of an
additional five mill countywide tax for schools in Jefferson County. The levy and collection of
this tax is under the same provisions as those provided for the Amendment 3 School District
Tax. This tax today is levied and collected at the rate of 5.0 mills (Constitution of 1901,
Amendment 175 as amended by Amendments 260 and 298). The provisions of this
Amendment are found in Appendix 7-7. This tax is authorized to be levied through the tax year
beginning October 1, 2035.
C. SUMMARY OF AD VALOREM TAXES AUTHORIZED FOR
THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
A summary of the authorization, type, rates, and purposes of ad valorem tax levied and
collected for Public Schools in Jefferson County follows in Table 4-1:
Table 4-1
Constitutional Authorization for Ad Valorem Taxes
Levied and Collected for the Public Schools of Jefferson County
Jefferson County School System Ad Valorem Taxation by Authorization
Revenue
Code
Initial
Rate
Countywide Section 269
Countywide Amendment 3, Section 1
Countywide Act 203, Approved February 7, 1891
6034
6032
6030
1.0
3.0
0.5
District
District
District
District
6230
6235
6245
6250
3.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
Type
Amendment No. 3, Section 2
Amendment No. 82
Amendment No. 175
Amendment No. 382
Current
Current Expiration
Total
Rate
Date of Final Levy
2.1
5.4
0.7
Subtotal
5.1
8.8
5.0
3.0
October 1, 2020
October 1, 2020
No Limit
8.2
October 1, 2020
October 1, 2020
October 1, 2035
October 1, 2035
Subtotal 21.9
Total 30.1
As is demonstrated, the Amendment 373 process has been used to increase the millage rate
collected under the authority of Section 269, Amendment 3, Section 1 Countywide, Act No. 203,
Section 2 School Tax District 2, and Amendment 82.
Apportionment of Countywide Taxes for School Systems of the County
School taxes collected as countywide taxes in those counties which have one or more
city school systems in the respective county must have an apportionment mechanism in state
statute to distribute those countywide taxes to the respective school systems of the county.
Statute clearly defines that school tax district taxes (in the case of a city school system, the
political boundaries of the city) must be spent only in that school tax district where collected.
68
However, a different situation exists for countywide school ad valorem taxes. There are at least
three statutory provisions which affect this distribution.
The first was the statutory
implementation of the one-mill countywide school tax authorized by Section 269 of the
Constitution of 1901 and implemented by statute:
§ 16-13-166. Collection of Tax.
The tax collector shall collect such special tax in the same manner and under the same
requirements and laws as taxes of the state are collected, shall keep said amount separate and
apart from all other funds, shall keep a clear and distinct account thereof and shall turn the same
over to the custodian of county school funds whose duty it shall be to receipt therefor. The county
board of education shall apportion the same to the various schools throughout the county in the
same manner as the public school funds from the state are apportioned in said county (Code of
While the definition of “public school funds” above may be questioned since there is not
a Public School Fund in the state since the approval of Amendment 111 ratified in 1956 which
amended Section 260 of the Constitution of 1901, the practice has been to apportion those
funds in accordance with additional statutory authorization which still refers to the Public School
Fund. When Amendment 3 was approved in 1916, a new statutory provision was approved for
allocation of the three-mill countywide tax:
§ 16-13-197. Collection of tax.
Whenever such a levy as is provided for in this article is made, it shall be the duty of the
tax collector within and for that county to collect such tax in the same manner and under the same
requirements and laws as the taxes of the state are collected, and he shall keep said amount
separate and apart from all other funds and keep a clear and distinct account thereof, showing
what amount is paid, and turn the same over to the county custodian of school funds whose duty it
shall be to receipt therefor, and pay the same on monthly payrolls and other prescribed forms, with
the authority and approval of the county board of education (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 1613-197).
With the creation of the Minimum Program Fund in 1935, there appeared a new statute
to govern the apportionment of countywide taxes to the respective city school systems within
the county. This was amended in 1995 with the creation of the 1995 Foundation Program and
appears as follows:
§16-13-31. Record of receipts and disbursements; apportionment of county-wide taxes for
Foundation Program.
(a) The tax collector/revenue commissioner of each county must keep a record of all receipts and
disbursements of school funds of his/her county to the local boards of education of the county.
(b) The tax collector/revenue commissioner of each county shall apportion county-wide taxes
collected for the purposes of participating in the Foundation Program to each local board of
education in the county on the basis of the total calculated costs of the Foundation Program for
those local boards of education within the county. The total calculated costs of the Foundation
Program for each local board of education shall be the sum of State funds received from the
Foundation Program and the amount of local effort required pursuant to paragraph a. of subdivision
(3) of subsection (b) of Section 16-13-231.
(c) The apportionment of county-wide taxes collected for the purposes of participating in the
Foundation Program as determined in Section 16-13-31(b) shall be used unless the local boards of
education in a county sign a mutual agreement and secure the approval of the State
Superintendent of Education to use some other plan involving desirable special adjustments (Code
69
This section created the Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio which governs
apportionment today not only of countywide ad valorem taxes, but also countywide excise,
franchise, and privilege license taxes. The exception to this rule is that an excise, franchise, or
privilege license tax could have been levied under several differing statutory authorities which
may have provided for a separate apportionment plan (see Appendix 7-32 for Jefferson County
for FY 2012-13). In addition, the local boards of education of a county may enter into a joint
alternative agreement for apportionment of all countywide revenues subject to the approval of
the State Superintendent of Education.
D. COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EXCISE, FRANCHISE, AND PRIVILEGE LICENSE
TAXES FOR THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
Countywide Excise, Franchise, and Privilege License Taxes for Schools
Counties have been granted general statutory authority to levy an excise, franchise, or
privilege license tax for school purposes:
§ 40-12-4. County license tax for school purposes – Authority to levy.
(a) In order to provide funds for public school purposes, the governing body of each of the
several counties in this state is hereby authorized by ordinance to levy and provide for the
assessment and collection of franchise, excise and privilege license taxes with respect to privileges
or receipts from privileges exercised in such county, which shall be in addition to any and all other
county taxes heretofore or hereafter authorized by law in such county. Such governing body may,
in its discretion, submit the question of levying any such tax to a vote of the qualified electors of the
county. If such governing body submits the question to the voters, then the governing body shall
also provide for holding and canvassing the returns of the election and for giving notice thereof. All
the proceeds from any tax levied pursuant to this section less the cost of collection thereof shall be
used exclusively for public school purposes, including specifically and without limitation capital
improvements and the payment of debt service on obligations issued therefor (Code of Alabama
1975, Section 40-12-4).
Jefferson County Sales Tax and Bond Issue
In 2004, the Jefferson County Commission ("the Commission") determined that the
Jefferson County Board of Education and the municipal school boards in Jefferson County had
current capital needs in excess of $1 billion. The Commission set out to implement a plan of
financing that would provide each local school board in Jefferson County with its proportionate
share of $1 billion for the acquisition and construction of currently needed capital projects or the
retirement of debt the board had already incurred to finance such projects. On August 24, 2004,
the Commission adopted ordinance no. 1764, which levied additional county-wide taxes and
pledged those taxes to fund new warrants to be issued by Jefferson County. The net proceeds
from the sale of the warrants would be used for capital improvements of the public schools in
Jefferson County (Chism et. al v. Jefferson County, p. 2).
On December 16, 2004, the Jefferson County Commission adopted its ordinance no.
1769 which levied a county-wide privilege (license tax) and a countywide excise tax ("the
education taxes"), whose collection began January 1, 2005, and pledged the revenues from the
education taxes to fund warrants to be issued by Jefferson County, the net proceeds of which
would be used for capital improvements of the public schools in Jefferson County ("the
education warrants"). The statutory authority of this Ordinance no. 1769 is for a "privilege or
license tax ... on the gross receipts of retail sales in the County pursuant to the authority of
70
Code of Alabama 1975 found in § 40-12-4" and an "excise tax . . . on the storage, use or other
consumption in the County of tangible personal property purchased at retail also pursuant to the
authority of Code of Alabama 1975 § 40-12-4" (Chism et. al v. Jefferson County, p. 2).
On December 29, 2004, Jefferson County issued the first series of the education
warrants, entitled "Limited Obligation School Warrants, Series 2004-A," in the aggregate
principal amount of $650,000,000. The Series 2004-A warrants have maturity dates from
January 2007 to January 2025 and bear fixed annual interest at rates ranging from 4.75% to
5.5%. On February 2, 2005, Jefferson County completed the issuance of the series of the
education warrants by issuing "Limited Obligation School Warrants, Series 2005-A and 2005-B
Warrants," in the aggregate principal amount of $400,000,000. The Series 2005-A and 2005-B
warrants have maturity dates from January 2007 to January 2027 and bear interest at variable
rates (Chism et. al v. Jefferson County, p. 3).
To facilitate the financing plan, the Commission entered into a trust indenture with
SouthTrust Bank (now Wachovia Bank). The trust indenture provides that all proceeds realized
from the sale of the education warrants (less the costs of issuing the warrants) are to be
deposited into a special fund ("the grant fund") pending distribution of those proceeds to the
local school boards. By their terms, the education warrants do not represent "general
obligations of the county backed by its full faith and credit, " but are "limited obligations" of the
County payable solely from the revenues collected under the education taxes. However, in
Section 9.1 of the trust indenture, the County has pledged its full faith and credit to pay from its
general fund any deficit in the event of an extraordinary mandatory redemption of the education
warrants. Jefferson County received a total of $1,090,820,599.59 from the sale of the warrants.
Jefferson County established prescribed reserves with almost $59 million, and paid fees,
discounts, and expenses of underwriters, attorneys, advisers, and others, with over $14 million.
The balance $1,017,609,801.74 was paid into the grant fund to be used for grants to specified
local school boards for certain public school purposes or to pay part of the costs of redeeming
the warrants in the event of an ''extraordinary mandatory redemption" (Chism et. al v. Jefferson
County, p. 3).
The proceeds of the education warrants remaining in the grant fund were paid, upon the
request of an "authorized county representative," in the form of grants to the following local
school boards within Jefferson County: Bessemer, Birmingham, Fairfield, Homewood, Hoover,
Jefferson County, Leeds, Midfield, Mountain Brook, Tarrant, and Vestavia Hills, to be used by
those boards for the construction or capital improvement of schools or to retire preexisting debt
of the boards incurred for capital-improvement projects. The 11 school boards are each to
receive a proportionate share of the balance in the grant fund based on the board's "Foundation
Program" cost for the 2004-05 school year, which was based on student attendance/enrollment
during the fall of 2003.
Jefferson County sold the education warrants and received the proceeds from their sale
in late 2004 (Series 2004-A) and early 2005 (Series 2005-A and 2005-B). The net proceeds are
presently in the grant fund. Ordinance no. 1769 provides that the revenues from the education
taxes will service the debt on the education warrants, which generated the funds presently in the
grant fund. The 11 local school boards are to receive a proportionate share of the balance in the
grant fund based on each board's Foundation Program cost for the 2004-2005 school year,
which was based on student attendance/enrollment as it was measured during the fall of 2003
(Chism et. al v. Jefferson County, p. 4).
71
The total grant amount awarded to the Jefferson County Board of Education was
$404.02 million, of which $30.01 million was forwarded to Trussville City Board of Education per
the April 2005 separation agreement. During fiscal year 2011, $.31 million of interest revenues
were earned on these grant funds.
Gardendale High School was constructed using the proceeds of these education
warrants issued by the Jefferson County Commission. The debt to the taxpayers of Jefferson
County will be discussed in Chapter 6. In addition, Appendix 7-37 is a current amortization
schedule of the debt payments to be made from the collection of the sales/use tax at the rate of
one percent countywide. This debt is not a school debt, but rather a county debt.
Municipal Excise, Franchise and Privilege License Taxes for Any Purpose
The municipalities of the State have been granted broad general authority to levy any
type of excise, franchise, or privilege license tax for any purpose. A single example of such
authority follows:
§ 11-51-200. Levy of sales tax authorized; exemption; construction.
The governing body of any municipality within the State of Alabama may provide by
ordinance for the levy and assessment of sales taxes, parallel to the state levy of sales taxes as
levied by Sections 40-23-1, 40-23-2, 40-23-2.1, 40-23-4 to 40-23-31, inclusive, 40-23-36, 40-23-37,
except for those provisions relating to the tax rate, and 40-23-38, except where inapplicable or
where otherwise provided in this article; provided, that no municipality may levy any such tax
against the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the State of Alabama in the sale of alcoholic
beverages. The phrase "except where inapplicable," contained herein and in Sections 11-51-201,
11-51-202, and 11-51-203, shall not be construed to permit a self-administered municipality to
adopt or interpret an ordinance, resolution, policy, or practice that relies on that phrase, either
directly or indirectly, in order to disavow, disregard, or attempt to disavow or disregard the mandate
provided in this and the following sections for conformity with the corresponding state tax levy,
unless the self-administered municipality can demonstrate that the ordinance, resolution, policy, or
practice will simplify collection or administration of the tax or is being made for the convenience of
the taxpayer (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 11-51-200).
In addition, under the authority conferred by Section 11-51-90, franchise and privilege
licenses tax levies are authorized. The legal authority for school taxes for public schools at the
local level has now been established. One further authority is for the appropriation of funds
from the treasury of the local governing body to the respective public school system:
§ 16-13-36. Appropriation of funds out of treasury.
Any appropriate local governing body is authorized at any meeting of said governing body
in any calendar year to appropriate any funds it may deem proper and expedient out of the general
funds of the governing body's treasury to local boards of education for the construction, repair,
operation, maintenance and support of new or existing public schools within the jurisdiction of said
governing body (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-36).
County Occupational Tax
The Alabama Constitution prohibits cities and counties from collecting income taxes.
County governments can impose taxes which are specifically authorized by the legislature and
which do not violate the constitution. The occupational tax, which is measured by a percentage
of gross income or gross receipts, is designated as a license or privilege license tax.
72
The Legislature granted any county in Alabama with a population of 500,000 or more the
authority to levy a license or privilege tax upon any person engaging in any business for which
he is not required by law to pay any license or privilege tax to either the State of Alabama or the
county (Acts of the Legislature, 1967 Regular Session, Act Number 406).
Jefferson County levied such a tax in January of 1988 at a rate of 0.5%. The receipts
from this revenue source can be appropriated by the county commission for any legal purpose,
including an appropriation to the county school system. This statute was repealed and replaced
in 2009 and tax collections collected during the period of repeal ruled by the court to be
refunded.
The state Supreme Court in March 2011 struck down this Jefferson County
occupational tax that raised about $66 million a year. Currently there is no occupational tax in
Jefferson County. Legislative permission must be given for a county to levy and collect an
occupation tax.
Municipal Occupational Tax
The principal statutory grant of authority for Alabama cities and towns to tax businesses
or trades, occupations or professions is found in Section 11-51-90, Code of Alabama, 1975.
Through the years the Supreme Court of Alabama has sanctioned the levy of business license
schedules, gasoline taxes, tobacco taxes, amusement taxes, lodging taxes, gross receipts
license taxes in the nature of sales taxes and the occupational license tax similar to an income
tax based on this grant of license power. Except as limited by special provisions hereafter
listed, the rates are left to the legislative discretion of the municipal governing body, subject to
the court-required test of reasonableness. Section 11-51-90 follows:
§ 11-51-90. Licensing of conduct of trade, business, profession, etc., in municipality
authorized generally; licensing as to persons, etc., engaged in business in connection with
interstate commerce; purposes for which licensing power conferred by division may be
exercised.
(a) All municipalities shall have the following powers:
(1) To license any exhibition, trade, business, vocation, occupation, or profession not prohibited by
the Constitution or laws of the state which may be engaged in or carried on in the city or town.
(2) To fix the amount of licenses, the time for which they are to run, not exceeding one year, to
provide a penalty for doing business without a license, and to charge a fee of not exceeding five
dollars ($5) for issuing each license.
(3) To require sworn statements as to the amount of capital invested, value of goods or stocks, or
amounts of sales or receipts where the amount of the license is made to depend upon the amount
of capital invested, value of goods or stocks, or amount of sales or receipts and to punish any
person or corporation for failure or refusal to furnish sworn statements or for giving of false
statements in relation thereto.
(b) The license authorized by subsection (a) of this section as to persons, firms, or corporations
engaged in business in connection with interstate commerce shall be confined to that portion within
the limits of the state and where the person, firm, or corporation has an office or transacts business
in the city or town imposing the license.
(c) The power to license conferred by this division may be used in the exercise of the police power
as well as for the purpose of raising revenue, or both (Code of Alabama, 1975, Section 11-51-90).
Section 11-51-90, Code of Alabama, 1975, has been interpreted by the courts as giving
municipalities authority to levy a tax for the privilege of working in the municipality. Such a tax
operates in a manner similar to an income tax. The tax, which is in effect in at least 12 cities
and towns, has been upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court on two occasions in the cases of
Estes v. City of Gadsden, 266 Ala. 166, 94 So. 2d 744 (1957), and McPheeter v. City of Auburn,
288 Ala. 286, 259 So. 2d 833 (1972). Such a tax cannot be collected from persons who work
73
only in the police jurisdiction of a municipality. See City of Mountain Brook v. Beaty, 349 So. 2d
1097 (Ala. 1977).
E. SUMMARY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
AD VALOREM TAXES FOR SCHOOLS FOR FY 2012-13
Following in Table 4-2 is a summary of budgeted ad valorem tax levies for Jefferson
County Public Schools for FY 2012-13.
Table 4-2
Jefferson County School Ad Valorem
Millages and Revenues Budgeted for FY 2012-13
Type
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
District
District
District
District
County
School Tax
District
Section 269
Amendment 3, Section 1
Act 203*
Subtotal
Amendment No. 82
Amendment No. 175
Amendment No. 382
2.1
5.4
0.7
8.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.1
8.8
5.0
3.0
Subtotal
21.90
Revenue Code
6034
6032
6030
6230
6235
6245
6250
Budgeted for
FY 2012-13
$
$
$
Subtotal $
$
$
$
$
Subtotal $
6,597,015
16,963,753
2,199,005
25,759,773
13,378,484
21,701,078
12,330,158
7,398,095
54,807,815
$
80,567,589
GRAND TOTAL
Yield per
Mill
$ 3,141,436
$ 3,141,436
$ 3,141,436
$
$
$
$
2,623,232
2,466,032
2,466,032
2,466,032
*Act 203 Approved February 7, 1891
Countywide and School Tax District Taxes that are School Taxes
In 66 of the 67 counties in Alabama, ad valorem taxes for schools are constitutionally
authorized, levied, and collected in two types of taxing jurisdictions. Taxes are either countywide
or school tax district. Mobile County is the exception. For those countywide taxes by
authorization, the tax base is the entire county and the taxes can be spent at the discretion of
the County Board of Education anywhere in the county. For those specific to a tax district, and
any county with a unitary school system (no city school systems), there must be at least two tax
districts with taxes collected and expended only within each tax district.
In the case of Jefferson County, there are the School Tax Districts for the city school
systems of Jefferson County and as a county school system school tax district tax in those
areas of Jefferson County not included in these city school systems. The total mills levied and
collected as school taxes for the 12 school systems of Jefferson County as displayed in Table
4-3 which follows:
74
Table 4-3
School Tax Districts and Total Mills Levied for School System of Jefferson County
TOTAL
SCHOOL
MILLAGE
TAX
COUNTY
RATE
DISTRICT
WIDE
SCHOOL SYSTEM
DISTRICT COUNTY/LEEDS/TRUSSVILLE
8.2
21.9
30.1
DISTRICT 12 - HOMEWOOD
8.2
15.1
23.3
DISTRICT 17 - MT BROOK
8.2
34.1
42.3
DISTRICT 18 - TARRANT
8.2
11.2
19.4
DISTRICT 20 - VESTAVIA HILLS
8.2
15.1
23.3
DISTRICT 30 - 39, 54, 63, 65 - BHAM
8.2
12.8
21.0
DISTRICT 52 - BESSEMER
8.2
5.4
13.6
DISTRICT 55 - FAIRFIELD
8.2
5.8
14.0
DISTRICT 58 - MIDFIELD
8.2
16.5
24.7
DISTRICT 66 - HOOVER
8.2
13.9
22.1
Source: Alabama Department of Revenue, Mills 2012
Note: Jefferson County School System, Leeds School System, and Trussville School System Tax Districts are not
separated by the Jefferson County Tax Assessor and thus also the Alabama Department of Revenue reports.
Gardendale School System Countywide and District School Taxes
The proposed Gardendale City School System would share all Jefferson County
countywide taxes of all types. The plan of apportionment is provided for in statute, whether
general application or by local act. In addition, the proposed Gardendale City School System
would be by definition a school tax district and would automatically have levied and collected on
their behalf all school ad valorem district taxes currently levied and collected on behalf of the
Jefferson County Schools. The rate would be the same as the parent district and the
boundaries of the school tax district tax would be the municipal limits of the City of Gardendale
as they currently exist and as they exist in the future.
F. JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM TOTAL LOCAL REVENUES
A combined statement of all local tax-based revenues budgeted for the Jefferson County
School System for FY 2012-13 follows in Table 4-4. In Chapter 5, these revenues will be
apportioned to reflect those as would have been earned for FY 2012-13 by the proposed
Gardendale City School System had it been in financial operation. While non-tax revenues are
significant, the main focus of Chapter 5 will be tax-based revenues.
Table 4-4
Budgeted by the Jefferson County School System for FY 2012-13
Account
Code
Account Code Title
6030 Act 203, Approved February 7, 1891
Fiscal
Year
2013
School System
Jefferson County
2013
Jefferson County
6032
2013
Jefferson County
6034
Section 269, Constitution of 1901
2013
Jefferson County
6095
Business Privilege Tax
$960,000.00
2013
Jefferson County
6140
County Alcohol Beverage Tax
$820,000.00
2013
Jefferson County
6170
County Mineral Lease Documentary Tax
2013
Jefferson County
6230
$13,378,483.87
2013
Jefferson County
6235
Amendment No. 82
$21,701,078.43
2013
Jefferson County
6245
Amendment No. 175
$12,330,158.20
2013
Jefferson County
6250
Amendment No. 382
$7,398,094.92
2013
Jefferson County
6370
Helping Schools-Vehicles Tags
2013
Jefferson County
6380 Manufactured Homes-Registration Fee
TOTAL LOCAL TAX-BASED REVENUES
75
Budgeted Amount
$2,199,005.04
$16,963,753.14
$6,597,015.12
$150.00
$26,000.00
$12,000.00
$82,385,738.72
The local revenues in Table 4-4 are derived from local ad valorem taxes, local excise,
franchise and privilege license taxes, and from other tax-based sources. Those which are
countywide rather than school tax district will be apportioned in accordance with state law.
Other local funds not derived from taxes shown in Table 4-5 which follows are unique to the
operation of each local board of education. While local taxes are very important, state and
federal funds make up the vast majority of revenues of local school systems to be budgeted.
These will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Table 4-5
Non Tax-Based Local Revenues Budgeted
by the Jefferson County School System for FY 2012-13
Fiscal
Year
2013
School System
Jefferson County
Account
Code
Account Code Title
6710 Daily Sales - Lunch
2013
Jefferson County
6720
Daily Sales - Breakfast
$352,100.00
2013
Jefferson County
6730
Daily Sales - A la carte
$2,172,200.00
2013
Jefferson County
6740
Daily Sales - Other
2013
Jefferson County
6810
Interest
2013
Jefferson County
6850
Income from 16th Section Land
2013
Jefferson County
6910
Rentals
2013
Jefferson County
6921
Charges for Services
$1,885,350.00
2013
Jefferson County
6922
Tuition for Individuals
$290,000.00
2013
Jefferson County
6930
Fees
2013
Jefferson County
6940
Contributions from Private Sources
$325,000.00
2013
Jefferson County
6965
Medicaid Administrative Outreach Program
$920,000.00
2013
Jefferson County
6980
Sale of Scrap Materials
2013
Jefferson County
7110
Admissions
2013
Jefferson County
7140
Appropriations
$117,600.00
2013
Jefferson County
7180
Concessions
$65,600.00
2013
Jefferson County
7220
Commissions
2013
Jefferson County
7260
Dues & Fees (Required)
2013
Jefferson County
7300
Fines & Penalties
2013
Jefferson County
7340
Fund Raiser
2013
Jefferson County
7380
Grants
2013
Jefferson County
7420
Sales
2013
Jefferson County
7430
Donations
2013
Jefferson County
7440
Accommodations
2013
Jefferson County
7490
Other
2013
Jefferson County
7510
Concessions
2013
Jefferson County
7610
Dues & Fees (Self-imposed)
$473,190.00
2013
Jefferson County
7710
Fund Raiser
$491,835.00
2013
Jefferson County
7810
Donations
$260,980.00
2013
Jefferson County
7850
Accommodations
$346,460.00
2013
Jefferson County
7910 Other
TOTAL LOCAL NON TAX-BASED REVENUES
Budgeted Amount
$3,758,300.00
$70,175.00
$291,727.00
$19,000.00
$34,700.00
$7,610.00
$3,000.00
$1,189,975.00
$200,965.00
$1,847,945.00
$66,720.00
$1,635,785.00
$3,781.00
$408,200.00
$1,132,526.00
$918,220.00
$55,550.00
$37,350.00
$9,350.00
$19,391,194.00
In addition, the State of Alabama Chart of Accounts recognizes a category of revenues
known as Other Sources which are not state, federal or local but which can be categorized as
local. These are relatively minor amounts and follow in Table 4-6:
76
Table 4-6
Other Financing Sources Budgeted
by the Jefferson County School System for FY 2012-13
Fiscal
Year
School System
Account
Code
2013
Jefferson County
8990
Other Miscellaneous Revenues
2013
Jefferson County
8993
CNP Rebates
$403,500.00
2013
Jefferson County
8995
Extracurricular Trip Mileage Charges
$304,424.00
2013
Jefferson County
8996
Non-funded Route Transportation Mileage Charges
Account Code Title
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Budgeted
Amount
$50,000.00
$131,413.72
$889,337.72
However, once again these revenues are specific to the operation of a local board of education
and not are classified as a tax-based revenue.
Allocation of Countywide Tax-Based Revenues
In general, countywide taxes follow students. In those counties where there is more
than one school system, any type of countywide tax is apportioned to each public school system
of the county on a per student basis. The actual technical basis is the Countywide Foundation
Program Cost Ratio. The following Table 4-7 demonstrates the apportionment of countywide
taxes in Jefferson County between the Jefferson County School System and respective city
school systems of Jefferson County.
Table 4-7
Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio for Jefferson County
for FY 2012-13 as Provided by the State Superintendent of Education
This Table 4-7 is extracted from the letter from the State Superintendent of Education to Mr.
Keith Crawford, Chief Accountant of the Jefferson County Revenue Department (See Appendix
7-32. The proposed Gardendale City School System would be added to this letter of
apportionment upon final financial separation from the Jefferson County School System.
Jefferson County School System Total Revenues Budgeted for FY 2012-13
In Table 4-8 below is found the combined revenues for all revenue sources for the
Jefferson County Public Schools for FY 2012-13. A distinction must be developed as to those
77
revenues over which the board has discretion in spending and those which are earmarked or
dedicated. It is important to note from this table that in governmental accounting, revenues are
placed in separate funds according to purposes of expenditure. The General Fund receives
the vast majority of revenues, the Special Revenue Fund receives restricted spending funds,
the Debt Service Fund accumulates revenues to pay for annual debt service, the Capital
Outlay Fund receives those funds which are dedicated for capital outlay purposes, and the
various Expendable Trust Fund accounts for those local school funds held in trust for local
groups, such as student clubs and organizations, and which are not under the general control of
the board to determine purpose of expenditure. These are Fiduciary Funds. For purposes of this
study, the key elements to determine fiscal feasibility will be local tax revenues in excess of
required State matches (discussed in Chapter 3) over which the board has control and those
dedicated to capital outlay purposes.
Table 4-8
Jefferson County Public Schools Combined Budget Statement FY 2012-13
Jefferson County Public Schools Combined Budget Statement for FY 2012-13
GOVERNMENTAL
General Fund
BEGINNING BALANCE
$
State Revenues
$ 173,828,591.29 $
Federal Funds
$
Local Revenues
$
Other Revenues
$
58,218,701.90 $ 19,466,172.23 $
Capital Projects
Fund
5,233,209.12 $
Expendable
Trust Fund
MemoTotal All
Funds
3,248,583.93 $ 1,414,425.06 $
87,581,092.24
$
-
$ 10,360,743.00 $
-
$ 184,189,334.29
$ 30,329,488.66 $
-
$
-
$
-
$
84,343,738.72 $ 15,814,029.00 $
-
$
-
$ 1,619,165.00 $ 101,776,932.72
403,500.00 $
-
$
-
$
$ 46,547,017.66 $
-
$ 10,360,743.00 $ 1,619,165.00 $ 317,185,093.39
-
485,837.72 $
TOTAL REVENUES $ 258,658,167.73
-
FIDUCIARY
Debt Service
Fund
Special
Revenue Fund
-
$
30,329,488.66
889,337.72
OTHER FUND SOURCES (USES)
Other Fund Sources
$
2,056,643.48
$ 9,576,708.48 $
Other Fund Uses
$
14,790,876.62
$ 2,178,405.47 $
TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $ (12,734,233.14) $ 7,398,303.01 $
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 256,307,345.63
$ 50,702,037.45 $
Excess Revenue and Other Sources
Over(Under) Expenditures and Other
Fund Uses
$ (10,383,411.04) $ 3,243,283.22 $
ENDING FUND BALANCE
$
47,835,290.86 $ 22,709,455.45 $
9,889,664.75 $
344,928.51 $
11,650.00 $
21,879,595.22
$
2,868,091.65 $
36,503.00 $
19,873,876.74
9,889,664.75 $
(2,523,163.14) $
(24,853.00) $
2,005,718.48
-
9,889,664.75 $
-
8,107,158.30 $ 1,412,080.00 $ 326,418,286.13
$
5,233,209.12 $
(269,578.44) $
182,232.00 $
2,979,005.49 $ 1,596,657.06 $
(7,227,474.26)
80,353,617.98
Note: these budgeted amounts subject to amendment during the course the fiscal year.
Of all of these funds, the ones which really matter to the enhancement of educational
opportunities are those derived from local tax sources. Sources of budgeted revenues from all
sources are found in the following in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9
Jefferson County School System Sources of Revenues for FY 2012-13
Source of
Revenue
State Revenues
Federal Funds
Local Revenues
Other Revenues
Total
Percent
of Total
58.07%
9.56%
32.09%
0.28%
$
$
$
$
Amount
184,189,334.29
30,329,488.66
101,776,932.72
889,337.72
$
317,185,093.39 100.00%
The Jefferson County School System, while over 50% funded by state revenues, is funded
above the state average from local revenues. As is seen in Figure 4-1, the state average for
FY 2009-10 of the percent of revenues from local funds was 28%, giving the Jefferson County
School System a four percentage point advantage. According to Alabama's Education Report
78
Card 2010-11, the Jefferson County School System ranks 99th statewide in state revenues per
ADM, ranks 37th statewide in local revenues per ADM, and ranks 87th statewide in federal
revenues per ADM (Alabama State Department of Education, Alabama's Education Report Card
2010-11).
Figure 4-1
Revenue by Source from Alabama's Education Report Card 2010-11
Note: The financial data is from FY 2009-10
Jefferson County School System Expenditures Budgeted for FY 2012-13
The spending plan budgeted by the Jefferson County School System follows in Table 410.
In evaluating the budgeted spending plan for the Jefferson County School System,
noteworthy is the relative high percentage of the budget planned for Instructional Services
(52.28%) and the relatively low percentage of the budget planned for General Administrative
Services (2.84%). Also noteworthy is the relatively low percentages for capital outlay and debt
service. The relatively low percentage for debt service (4.37%) is partially explained by the
Jefferson County School Warrant Issue as previously discussed whose debt service is not a
financial liability of the local school systems of Jefferson County. Adding to the debt service
percentage the capital outlay percentage of 0.61% yields a total of 4.98% (the sum of
expenditures for debt service and for capital outlay) which is exceptionally low compared to the
statewide average of 14.0% (See Figure 4.2 which follows).
Table 4-10
Jefferson County Budgeted Expenditures by Function for FY 2012-13
Amount
Percent of
Total
Instructional Services
$ 170,666,126.76
52.28%
Instructional Support Services
$
52,482,291.13
16.08%
Operation and Maintenance Services
$
29,040,130.87
8.90%
Auxiliary Services
$
43,205,372.74
13.24%
General Administrative Services
$
9,261,310.01
2.84%
Capital Outlay
$
1,996,896.19
0.61%
Debt Service
$
14,251,619.86
4.37%
Other Expenditures
$
5,514,538.57
1.69%
Expenditures
Total Expenditures
$ 326,418,286.13
100.00%
The statewide distribution of Expenditures by Function follows in Figure 4-2. It should
be noted that statewide the expenditures for Instructional Services only average 48%. This is
much lower than the Jefferson County School System. Also notice that the Jefferson County
School System expenditure for Instructional Support Services totals 16.08% of the budgeted
79
expenditures, much higher than the state average of 14.0%. Food Service and Transportation
are the two functional components of Auxiliary Services. For the Jefferson County School
System, this percentage of the budgeted expenditures is 13.24% which is roughly equal to the
state average of 13%. However, it must be noted that some city local boards of education do
not operate a student transportation system, which means that the average for those local
school systems which do operate a student transportation system must be higher than the
13.0%. The Jefferson County School System encompasses a very large county and serves
school sites widely dispersed in Jefferson County.
Figure 4-2
Expenditure by Function from Alabama's Education Report Card 2010-11
The expenditures of the Jefferson County School System for FY 2009-10, the latest
statewide report published by the Alabama State Department, show the Current Expenditures
per Pupil in ADM to be $8,789.43 and rank 55th in the State (Current Expenditures per Pupil –
The expenditures for operating local public schools, excluding capital outlay and interest on the
school debt, divided by the fall enrollment). In terms of state funds alone, the rank was 61st. In
terms of federal funds, the rank was 83rd. In terms of local funds, the rank was 39th. These
expenditures are in line with the comparative relative ranking for the sources of revenues
(Alabama State Department of Education, Alabama's Education Report Card 2010-2011).
Jefferson County School System Local Tax Effort Budgeted for FY 2012-13
When comparing the pattern of budgeted revenues and expenditures of the Jefferson
County School System, the conclusions appear that while the System is relatively well funded, it
does not rank among the best funded in Alabama. The latest data provided by the Alabama
State Department of Education as a publication is shown in Figure 4-3 below. This shows
32.58 mills equivalent and a grade of C+ statewide for FY 2008-09.
80
Figure 4-3
Mills Equivalent for the Jefferson County School System for FY 2008-09
Note: Alabama's Education Report Card 2009-10 based upon financial data submitted by local boards of education
to the state for 2009-10.
Appendix 7-11 which contains tax capacity and effort for county school systems,
demonstrates that in terms of the number of equivalent mills of local tax dollars budgeted for the
Jefferson County School System for FY 2012-13, the number of 32.95 ranks 59th in the state.
Appendix 7-12 continues this analysis for city school systems. The most significant criterion of
the financial integrity of a local school system is on a per student basis, the local tax dollars
available to the local board of education to be budgeted. For the most part, these are the only
resources over which the board has such authority due to the highly earmarked by object of
expenditure of state and federal revenues.
As is shown in Appendix 7-13, the state average for the number of equivalent mills of
local tax effort is 32.28 which places the Jefferson County School System only slightly above
the state average. However, the positive analysis of the mills equivalent value is that they are
derived almost exclusively from ad valorem taxation which tends to be very predictable and
consistent, and only slightly decremented during the great recession. In addition, since the one
cent Jefferson County sales tax levied and collected under the authority of Code of Alabama
1975, Section 40-12-4, is retained by the Jefferson County Commission to retire the debt on the
Jefferson County School Construction Warrant Issue, this local tax asset is not reflected in the
Jefferson County School System Budget. In other school systems where this tax is levied and
collected, the proceeds are distributed annually to the local school system and are reflected as
revenue in their budget.
The leeway for program enhancement is from local tax revenues, the amounts left over
after required state matches are made. These required state matches are known as required
local effort (See Table 3-6 for the definition of this term). State allocations from the 1995
Foundation Program and the 1995 Capital Purchase Program require local funds to be
budgeted as a match to receive the funds and are thus restricted to state purposes. The
implication of this required match for the Jefferson County and proposed Gardendale City
School System will be detailed in Chapter 5.
(balance of this page left blank)
81
State Allocations for the Jefferson County School System for FY 2012-13
State allocations for the Jefferson County School System budgeted for FY 2012-13 are
found in the following Tables 4-11 and 4-12. Table 4-11 is the State Department of Education
annual allocation exhibit of selected appropriations. Table 4-12 is the summary of all state
allocations.
Table 4-11
Jefferson County Public School System State Allocations for FY 2012-13
State Department of Education
Final FY 2013 Foundation Program
37
Jefferson County
FY 2013
System ADM
Foundation Program Units
Teachers
Principals
Assistant Principals
Counselors
Librarians
Voc. Ed. Directors
Voc. Ed. Counselors
Total Units
Foundation Program (State & Local Funds)
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Other Current Expense
Classroom Instructional Support Total
Student Materials and Supplies
Technology
Library Enhancement
Common Purchase
Textbooks Per ADM
Current Units
FY 2011
Per Unit
$
$
$
14,958.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
300.00
31.35
-
Total Foundation Program.
Foundation Program Cost from ETF
State Funds - Categorical Aid
Student Health Data
Transportation
Operating Allocation
Fleet Renewal
At Risk
At-Risk Program - ASIMS
Board of Adjustment Awards
APSCA
Per Chassis
2,021.33
55.00
38.50
71.50
74.50
2.00
1.00
2,013.18
54.00
38.00
71.50
75.00
2.00
1.00
8.15
1.00
0.50
0.00
(0.50)
0.00
0.00
2,263.83
82
105.85
2,254.68
9.15
FY 2010
Per Unit
105,558,171 $
39,194,922 $
33,862,140 $ 11,502.00
1,809,573
679,149 $
134.78
- $
- $
- $
- $
1,130,424 $
17.17
- $
180,424,806
105,972,171
39,101,861
34,460,781
874,811
303,887
570,924
93,468
180,503,092
(414,000)
93,061
(598,641)
934,762
375,262
559,500
(93,468)
155,424,226
155,304,682
119,544
14,339,805
961,081
0
-
Number Mills
10.000000
1.041451
Change
35,952.30
26,813
1,088,020
-
Subtotal ETF Categorical Aid Programs
Subtotal ETF from Appropriation Bill
SDE Allocations
High Hopes Program
High Hopes Program to link home computers to ASIMS
Preschool Program
Total from ETF
Capital Purchase
Debt Service
Subtotal PSF
Total State Funds
Local Funds
Foundation Program Match
Capital Purchase Match
Total Local Funds
FY 2012
36,058.15
Per Chassis
$
5,753.00
(78,286)
27,219
1,135,709
-
(406)
(47,689)
14,726,551
1,570,569
1,012,378
0
-
(386,746)
(1,570,569)
(51,297)
0
-
16,415,719
18,472,426
171,839,945
173,777,108
220,616
53,710
172,114,271
8,612,436
-
254,531
50,641
174,082,280
8,257,941
-
8,612,436
180,726,707
8,257,941
182,340,221
(33,915)
3,069
(1,968,009)
354,495
0
354,495
(1,613,514)
25,198,410
2,388,661
27,587,071
(197,830)
206,352
8,522
25,000,580
2,595,013
27,595,593
Number Mills
10.000000
0.950014
(2,056,707)
(1,937,163)
This allocation sheet is annually prepared by the State Department of Education when a
state ETF budget is approved and distributed to local school systems. The most important
component of this allocation sheet is the analysis of the teacher units that are earned and the
associated cost reimbursement from the state for these teacher units. The annual 1995
Foundation Program allocations are actually reimbursement for the education program costs for
the prior fiscal year since prior year ADM and the placement of each certificated person on the
statewide minimum salary schedule matrix are the input variables. However, adjustments may
be made annually for a state mandated pay raise, an increase in fringe benefits, increases in
the appropriations of the components of Classroom Instructional Support, and the number of
Current Teacher Units appropriation amount.
The next section of the allocation sheet is devoted to the categorical aid programs, most
of which are found in statue, which are outside of the 1995 Foundation Program statute but
commonly referred to as being in the 1995 Foundation Program. The major programs here as
categorical aid are the Student Transportation Programs and the Capital Purchase Program.
The last section of the allocation sheet contains a few of the additional line items of
appropriation made by the Legislation in the annual education appropriations act to the State
Department of Education for allocation to local school systems. These items of appropriation do
not have a statutory basis and are annual determinations at the discretion of the Legislature.
However, these programs and the required local taxation with required local effort (see
Table 3-6 for definitions) are not sufficient to operate a school system. Generally, the costs of
local central administration or General Administrative Services are to be funded from local
taxes; however, the funds allocated as other current expense could be used for this purpose if
they were not already required to provide for multiple unfunded mandates from the State. And
there is the need for debt service and capital outlay from local funds as well as local initiatives
for instructional improvement. In Chapter 5, the revenues allocated under this scheme for the
schools which serve the resident students of Gardendale will be detailed.
Alabama Public School and College Authority
Additional State funding for local public schools is available annually through the
Alabama Public School and College Authority which provides both periodic bond issue
allocations paid for from State sources and periodic bond issue allocations paid for by local
school system with Capital Purchase Program allocations intercepted by the State from the
Public School Fund. This procedure was discussed in Chapter 3. The utilization of this
bonding authority by the Jefferson County Board of Education will be documented in Chapter 5
as amortization tables for the debt assigned from this authority to school sites in the City of
Gardendale will be discussed and included as Appendices 7-35 and 7-36.
State Revenues Sources Budgeted by Jefferson County for FY 2012-13
As was explained in Chapter 3, there are many sources of State revenues to local
boards of education. The following revenues by State source or line item of appropriation are in
majority budgeted for the Jefferson County School System for FY 2012-13 in the General Fund
(unrestricted) of the system which comprises the majority of revenues as shown in Table 4-12.
They are budgeted on the basis of state allocations which have been recalculated during the
fiscal year due to proration. The students and schools of the proposed Gardendale City School
System would be eligible to receive an apportionment of these funds based upon the criteria
adopted by statute and State Board of Education Resolution for the annual allocation of funds.
83
These will be detailed in Chapter 5. Also, budgeted revenues for local and federal sources may
be re-estimated during the course of the fiscal year. However, no charges are permitted to the
amounts for required local effort. These amounts may change slightly during the fiscal year and
are budgeted amounts subject to amendment.
Table 4-12
Total State Revenues Budgeted by Jefferson County for FY 2012-13
Account
Code
Account Code Title
1110 Foundation Program - Regular
Fiscal
Year
2013
School System
Jefferson County
Budgeted
Amount
$155,424,226.00
2013
Jefferson County
1220
2013
Jefferson County
1221
2013
Jefferson County
1222
Career Tech O & M
2013
Jefferson County
1230
Alabama Reading Initiative
2013
Jefferson County
1240
High School Graduation Exam Remediation
$220,616.00
2013
Jefferson County
1250
Childrens First - Alabama Tobacco Settlement
$121,158.00
2013
Jefferson County
1252
English as a Second Language - State
2013
Jefferson County
1275
Gifted Education
2013
Jefferson County
1310
Transportation - Operations
2013
Jefferson County
1410
At Risk
2013
Jefferson County
1520
Preschool
2013
Jefferson County
1810
State Contracts
2013
Jefferson County
2120
Public School Fund- Capital Outlay
2013
Jefferson County
2256
Act 2012-562 Fleet Renewal
$1,088,020.00
$26,813.00
$259,022.00
$1,101,074.00
$83,993.00
$49,430.00
$14,339,805.00
$961,081.00
$53,710.00
TOTAL STATE REVENUES
$99,643.29
$8,612,436.00
$1,748,307.00
$184,189,334.29
G. EXPIRATION OF EXISTING AD VALOREM TAXES
FOR THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
AND CITY SYSTEM(S) OF JEFFERSON COUNTY
All ad valorem school taxes (five general constitutional authorizations) may be levied
only by a referendum of the people. These authorizations are for a fixed period of time and
either will expire or be renewed by an additional referendum according to the following provision
of Section 16-13-108:
(b) No election for the voting of the tax shall be held which would authorize the tax for a period or
aggregate periods which would cause the tax to become due and payable later than 30 years from
the October 1 next after such election. All warrants heretofore or hereafter issued as preferred
claims against a special tax under the constitution shall continue such claims against such tax until
paid, whether such tax was voted at one time or from time to time and whether such tax was voted
at the time the warrants were issued or thereafter (Code of Alabama, 1975, Section 16-13-108).
This limitation applies to the five general authorizations. In the case of Jefferson County, one
authorization as previously discussed was grandfathered in the Constitution of 1901 and does
not expire. The summary of expiration dates of levy are found in the following Table 4-13.
Given that no expiration of levy occurs before October 1, 2020, sufficient lead time is
provided for all school systems of Jefferson County to construct a positive campaign to explain
the important of renewing these ad valorem taxes to the voters of Jefferson County. Therefore,
unlike for many local boards of education, the specter of a renewal vote is not in the foreseeable
future. In many instances, a renewal vote is characterized as a new ad valorem tax on citizens
and thus becomes the target of an anti-vote effort.
84
Table 4-13
Jefferson County School System Ad Valorem Taxation by Authorization
Revenue
Code
Initial
Rate
Countywide Section 269
Countywide Amendment 3, Section 1
Countywide Act 203, Approved February 7, 1891
6034
6032
6030
1.0
3.0
0.5
District
District
District
District
6230
6235
6245
6250
3.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
Type
Amendment No. 82
Amendment No. 175
Amendment No. 382
Current
Current Expiration
Total
Rate
Date of Final Levy
2.1
5.4
0.7
Subtotal
5.1
8.8
5.0
3.0
October 1, 2020
October 1, 2020
No Limit
8.2
October 1, 2020
October 1, 2020
October 1, 2035
October 1, 2035
Subtotal 21.9
Total 30.1
It is a fortunate event for all public school systems in Jefferson County that no renewal
vote is necessary in the near future for countywide school ad valorem taxes. It is also a
fortunate event for any municipality considering forming their own city school system that no
renewal vote is necessary in the near future for a school tax district ad valorem tax currently
levied and collected by the Jefferson County Board of Education.
85
5. FINANCING THE PROPOSED
GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM
A. ENDOWMENTS OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
IN THE CITY OF GARDENDALE
Should the Gardendale City Council pass a resolution to create the proposed
Gardendale City School System, all school property of the Jefferson County School System
located within the city limits of the City of Gardendale (land, buildings, and equipment) would
become the property of the new city school system. This would include school sites with
buildings and equipment, vacant land, and any sixteenth section school lands (there are none
identified). The following acreage has been identified at existing school sites and is displayed in
the Table 5-1 which follows:
Table 5-1
Acreage of School Sites in the City of Gardendale
Site
Site
Name of School
Number
Grades
Acreage
Site 037-0300
Bragg Middle School
Grades K-05
28
Site 037-0840
Grades K-05
18
Site 037-0095
Grades 06-08
10
Site 037-0310
Grades 09-12
65
Grades K-12
121
Total School Sites of Gardendale
B. PROPOSED GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM LOCAL TAX BASED
REVENUES FOR FY 2012-13
Student Enrollment
In Alabama, school funding formulas for the allocation of the 1995 Foundation Program
and the Public School Fund Capital Purchase Allocation are based upon the wealth of a local
board of education measured in terms of yield per mill of school tax district ad valorem tax per
student in Average Daily Membership (ADM) (the average number of students enrolled for the
first 20 scholastic days after Labor Day in a local school system). As this measure of wealth
increases, so does the contribution that local boards of education must provide in order to
receive state funds from the (1) 1995 Foundation Program and the (2) 1995 Capital Purchase
Program.
In the case of the 1995 Foundation Program, the first requirement is that a local board
of education must deposit into the School System General Fund for the purposes of funding the
1995 Foundation Program the equivalent yield of 10.0 mills of school district tax from any taxbased local source. This amount is calculated from the most recent financial statement of local
boards filed with the State Department of Education whose fiscal year of tax collection is two
years in arrears from the amount in the annual education appropriations bill. Once the Financial
Statement is filed for the fiscal year ended, the amounts for each local board of education
statewide are summed, and are included in the appropriation request for the budget year.
86
Therefore, this statewide total and the amount for each local board lag behind the
current appropriations by two fiscal years. The local match for the FY 2012-13 Foundation
Program calculations were based upon the ad valorem revenues actually received for FY 201011 from all classes of property by the Jefferson County Board of Education. Since the
Foundation Program in actuality determines and allocates cost on a per student basis in ADM
as cost reimbursement for prior year costs, this required local effort, or contribution, or
chargeback is, in reality on a per student basis. This is the statutory determination of the wealth
of the local board of education in terms of yield per mill per ADM.
All state calculations of state aid formulas are based upon this one measure of wealth:
the yield of one mill of school tax district tax of all school tax districts comprising the school
system (see Appendices 7-9 and 7-10). Therefore, a local board of education can demonstrate
greater wealth for these calculations by the enhancement of the assessed valuation of property
of the respective school tax districts of the school system, or by having a declining student
population upon which this wealth must be expended. However, diminished student population
conversely also means a reduced calculated cost reimbursement from state aid formulas, and in
the case of a city school system, reduced countywide taxes.
Budgeting for any local school systems requires accurate and timely recognition of
changes in student enrollment measured in ADM. Losing students, which results in a loss of
state and local revenues, must be accompanied by a commensurate reduction in infrastructure
cost. Fortunately, the 1995 Foundation Program is calculated for the budget year on the prior
year student count.
Therefore there is a one year period of hold-harmless funding
(reimbursement for prior year cost of operations) which means local boards have reasonable
opportunity to make adjustments in costs.
Conversely, gaining students means the local board must forward fund such necessary
cost increase. While the 1995 Foundation Program does provide for the annual allocation of
“current teacher units” to those local boards of education increasing enrollment in the budget
year, the amount is limited to what the Legislature chooses to provide and for the past several
years has been dramatically underfunded. Therefore, local boards of education are mandated
to absorb additional costs for teacher units necessary to cover personnel costs, instruction
costs, and classroom space when student enrollment grows. A difficulty in planning growth is
that a local board may have no way of knowing future enrollment trends until students actually
show up and register.
Tax Capacity and Chargeback or Required Local Effort
The calculation of the chargeback for the Jefferson County School System follows in
Table 5-2; this chargeback has been steadily growing over the past decade. The measure of
yield per mill is the measure of tax capacity used in Alabama for school funding purposes (See
Table 3-6 for definition of terms). This measure is collected annually by the Alabama State
Department of Education from the financial statements submitted at the end of each fiscal year.
The amounts thus tabulated are included in the annual education appropriations request
submitted to the Governor and the Legislature by the State Board of Education for appropriation
for the budget year. Therefore the actual collections reported are the amounts to be charged
back in the budget year, or two years in arrears of actual collections.
87
Table 5-2
Calculation of the Chargeback for the Jefferson County School System
CALCULATION OF CHARGEBACK FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
Yield of Ten
Yield Per Mill
Mills Two
Two Years in
Years in
Chargeback
Yield Per
Total
Fiscal Arrears from Arrears from
Calculated for ADM from Mill Per Chargeback
Year
Financial
Financial
Prior Year
Budget Year
ADM
Per ADM
Ending
Statement*
Statement*
36,406.05
n/a
n/a
2007-08 $2,423,808
$ 24,238,080 $ 21,816,740
36,216.20
n/a
n/a
2008-09 $2,480,467
$ 24,804,670 $ 22,983,750
2009-10 $2,519,841
$ 25,198,410 $ 24,238,080
36,245.65 $66.87
$668.72
2010-11 $2,500,058
$ 25,000,580 $ 24,804,670
36,172.50 $68.57
$685.73
$ 25,198,410
2011-12
n/a
n/a
35,952.30 $70.09
$700.88
2012-13
n/a
n/a
$ 25,000,580
36,058.15 $69.33
$693.34
*Yield Per Mill is based upon the collections of ad valorem taxes, Classes I, II, III, and IV for all school
tax districts comprising the school system.
As is seen in Appendix 7-9, this measure ranks the Jefferson County Public School
System as the 5th in the state in terms of tax capacity measured as yield per mill of school tax
district ad valorem tax. However, this is not tax wealth. In terms of students to be served by
taxing this tax capacity, the Jefferson County Public School System ranks 45th in the state
based on wealth measured by yield per mill per ADM. This value is less than the state
average. It is obvious from this calculation that the wealth measure is very sensitive to the
numbers of students served in ADM. A similar calculation will follow for the proposed
Gardendale City School System.
Resident and Non-Resident Student Populations
Since the wealth of a local school system is sensitive to the numbers of students
enrolled, it is necessary to estimate the number of students to be served in the proposed
Gardendale City School System before a measure of wealth can be predicted. Using
information based on actual residents of Gardendale, the following ADM (see Table 5-3) can be
estimated for the four school sites of the City of Gardendale. It is important to note at this point
that any estimate of resident student attendance is just that, an estimate made of resident
students eligible to attend, a snapshot of the present as a reasonable predictor of the future.
Actual operation of the proposed Gardendale City School System is, with all deliberate speed to
separate, most likely two school years later.
Some explanation is necessary to explain how this student count was derived. A direct
analysis of residence of students by ADM by school site was provided by the Jefferson County
Board of Education. However, total enrollment, which counts every student who was enrolled
for at least one day by source of residence, was provided. So many factors must be accepted
as uncertainties. (1) Some of these students may have withdrawn, moved away, dropped out,
and so forth; this introduces an error into any projection. (2) Furthermore, many students who
currently attend a school site in the City of Gardendale live outside the political boundaries of
the City (city limits) and therefore are not resident students and should not be counted. (3)
Some resident students are zoned to attend school sites outside of the City of Gardendale and
must be counted. (4) And lastly, some students currently home schooled or in private schools, if
they are residents of the City of Gardendale, are guaranteed the right to attend the proposed
88
Gardendale City School System. And over the next two years, it should be expected that the
population of the City of Gardendale will increase. The last point of explanation is that while
students residing outside of the City of Gardendale are not included at this point, the Board
appointed by the City Council of Gardendale can and may establish rules and procedures by
which non-resident students may attend the proposed Gardendale City School System.
The estimates made for student population follow in Table 5-3:
Table 5-3
Predicted Resident Student Enrollment in Schools of Gardendale
Estimate of Resident Gardendale ADM for FY 2012-13
GARDENDALE
SNOW
ELEMENTARY
ROGERS
SCHOOL
ELEMENTARY
Category
ADM 2012-13
Subtract Non-Resident Students
Outside Gardendale and Mt. Olive
Subtract Non-Resident Students
Outside Gardendale and in Mt. Olive
Total Non-Resident Students in School
Sites in Gardendale
Add Resident Students Attending
School Sites Outside of Gardendale
Add Resident Students Home or
Private Schooled
Calculations
SAFE Student Capacity
Number Instructional Portables
BRAGG
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
GARDENDALE
HIGH SCHOOL
TOTAL SCHOOL
SITES OF
GARDENDALE
Site 037-0300
Grades K-05
873.6
Site 037-0840
Grades K-05
193.3
Site 037-0095
Grades 06-08
884.5
Site 037-0310
Grades 09-12
1,112.9
Grades K-12
3,064.2
(31)
(5)
(211)
(238)
(485)
(25)
(2)
(231)
(279)
(537)
(56)
(7)
(442)
(517)
(1,022)
N/A
62
43
62
167
N/A
818
5
253
15
501
25
683
45
2,254
920
540
910
1,400
3,770
4
1
3
0
8
Note: The above table uses interchangeably ADM and Enrollment. The ADM is from the prior year but used
for purposes of calculating state aid for FY 2012-13. The determination of resident and non-resident students is by
enrollment as an ADM value is not available. However, estimates of error are very slight in this process and will not
materially affect the outcome of the Study.
The following Table 5-4 demonstrates the reports from individual school sites of the
resident student population:
Table 5-4
Resident Student Population in School Sites of Gardendale
Gardendale
Snow
Elementary
Rogers
Grade
K
152
35
1
151
26
2
125
24
3
135
29
4
118
29
5
137
29
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TOTAL
818
172
Bragg
Middle
Gardendale
High School
161
136
141
438
89
174
133
129
138
574
TOTAL
187
177
149
164
147
166
161
136
141
174
133
129
138
2,002
This shows a total resident enrollment of 2,002. The following Table 5-5 shows the reported
enrollment of City of Gardendale residents in other Jefferson County school sites outside the
City of Gardendale and also possible home- and private-schooled residents who may choose to
attend the proposed Gardendale City School System:
Table 5-5
Resident Students of Gardendale Attending School Sites Outside City of Gardendale
Grade
Mt. Olive Bottenfield
Bryan
Burkett Fultondale Hueytown Mortimer
North
Elementary Middle
Elementary Center Elementary Elementary Jordan Jefferson
School
School
High
Middle
School
School
School
School
K
2
1
9
2
8
4
3
6
4
5
12
1
6
7
1
8
9
10
11
12
41
2
TOTAL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
5
3
2
2
29
7
Home or
Shades
Private
Valley High
School
Schooled
1
1
1
1
7
12
15
8
8
7
8
31
1
3
5
7
4
3
19
34
1
2
0
2
7
4
4
10
5
5
5
45
TOTAL
7
12
13
9
10
16
17
20
21
28
23
18
18
212
Table 5-6 which follows summarizes the non-resident student population of school sites
in the City of Gardendale by school site and by non-residency in either Gardendale or Mount
Olive and by non-residency in Mount Olive:
Table 5-6
Non-Resident Students Attending School Sites in Gardendale*
Gardendale Elementary
Grade
Non Resident of
Gardendale
or Mt. Olive
Non Resident of
Gardendale
in Mt. Olive
Snow Rogers
Bragg Middle
Non Non Non Resident of Resident of Resident of
Gardendale Gardendale Gardendale
or Mt. Olive in Mt. Olive or Mt. Olive
K
4
5
1
5
1
2
5
5
3
4
6
4
6
3
5
7
5
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
0
9
0
10
0
0
11
0
0
12
0
0
Subtotal
31
25
TOTAL
56
*Student Population Count in Enrollment
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
Gardendale High
School
Non Non Resident of Resident of
Gardendale Gardendale
in Mt. Olive or Mt. Olive
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
69
72
0
0
0
0
211
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
72
76
0
0
0
0
231
442
Non Resident of
Gardendale
in Mt. Olive
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
67
70
40
238
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
60
70
70
279
517
TOTAL
TOTAL
Non Non Resident of Resident of
ALL NONGardendale Gardendale RESIDENTS OF
or Mt. Olive in Mt. Olive GARDENDALE
4
6
6
5
7
8
70
69
72
61
67
70
40
485
5
1
5
8
3
5
83
72
76
79
60
70
70
537
9
7
11
13
10
13
153
141
148
140
127
140
110
1,022
1,022
As is shown above, of the 1,022 total non-resident students, the majority or 537 are reported to
reside in Mount Olive and the balance of 485 outside of either Gardendale or Mount Olive. As
was shown above in Table 5-5, 41 students are reported to attend Mount Olive Elementary
School who reside in Gardendale.
From Table 5-4, the total resident student population in enrollment based upon
information from the respective school sites yields 2,002 resident students currently attending
school sites in Gardendale and from Table 5-5, 212 resident students attending school sites
90
outside of Gardendale (also home- and/or private-schooled students) for a total student
population of 2,212. This total compares very favorably with the analysis provided in Table 5-3
which is based upon ADM for FY 2012-13. This total was 2,254.
From these calculations, the estimated resident student count for funding purposes of
the proposed Gardendale City School System for FY 2012-13 was set at 2,214. This
student count as ADM and distributed by grade was used to estimate state allocation.
However, at the time of separation, a different student count, probably larger, will be used to
determine state funding and share of countywide taxes.
Wealth of the Proposed Gardendale City School System
The proposed Gardendale City School System would have its chargeback determined
by the yield of one mill of city school district tax for schools multiplied by ten. Since this city
school tax district does not exist, as a proxy for the following calculations, a summary of the
assessed valuation of property, Classes I, II, III, and IV will be used and a millage rate of 1.0
mill or 1/10th on a penny or 0.1% or 0.001 will be applied. The assessed valuation data for real
and personal property in Classes I, II, and III were provided by the Jefferson County Tax
Assessors Office; the motor vehicle assessed valuation for Classes I, II and IV were provided
by the Jefferson County Revenue Department. The assessed valuation and estimated yield per
mill of city ad valorem tax (if levied) for the City of Gardendale follows in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7
Assessed Valuation of Classes I, II, III and IV of Gardendale City and Yield per Mill
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION OF CITY OF GARDENDALE
AS S E S S M E N T S
2008
2009
2010
2011
Class I Public Utility Property $
5,487,860 $
4,922,720 $
5,873,660 $
6,030,240 $
6,257,680
Class II Property $
82,510,876 $
81,039,307 $
78,551,415 $
82,575,986 $
78,235,171
Class III Property $
82,125,008 $
82,648,085 $
83,565,014 $
82,575,986 $
78,583,306
Total Assessments Classes I, II & III
Penalties
Total Assessments and Penalties
$ 170,123,744 $ 168,610,112 $ 167,990,089 $ 171,182,212 $ 163,076,157
$
49,841 $
57,382 $
47,120 $
96,832 $
29,242
$ 170,173,585 $ 168,667,494 $ 168,037,209 $ 171,279,044 $ 163,105,399
Class I, II, and IV Motor Vehicles $
Total All Assessments
2012
23,142,840 $
21,064,920 $
21,311,860 $
21,914,980 $
22,871,060
$ 193,316,425 $ 189,732,414 $ 189,349,069 $ 193,194,024 $ 185,976,459
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
$
193,316 $
189,732 $
189,349 $
193,194 $
185,976
Chargeback of 10 Mills $
1,933,164 $
1,897,324 $
1,893,491 $
1,931,940 $
1,859,765
Apply Rate of One Mill
Yield per Mill
0.001
The distribution of these found classes of ad valorem property is worth noting. At the
bottom of the Table 5-8 it can be seen that business property (Class II) is the second largest
class of property in the City of Gardendale, accounting for 42.07%% of the total value of
property subject to the ad valorem tax. This property is assessed at 20% of its fair market value.
Also noteworthy is the relatively small percentage of assessed valuation of public utilities (Class
I) which is assessed at 30% of its fair market value. Further development of Class II property
per dollar value of investment is taxed at twice the rate of residential property and further
generates sales tax revenues.
Table 5-8
Percentage Share of Assessed Valuation by Class of Property in Gardendale
FY 2012
Class I
Class II
Class III
Percent Distribution by Class
3.37%
42.07%
42.26%
91
Class I, II, and
IV Motor
12.30%
Table 5-9
Percentage Share of Assessed Valuation by Class of Property in Jefferson County
FY 2012
Class I
Class II
Class III
Percent Distribution by Class
6.94%
55.12%
29.11%
Class I, II, and
IV Motor
Vehicles
8.82%
In Table 5-9, is a similar calculation using the assessed valuation of Jefferson County as
a whole. In terms of Class II business property, the percentage share is much larger than the
City of Gardendale and a much smaller dependence on motor vehicles. Also, the percent of
Class I utility property is more than doubled.
Obviously the tax capacity of the City of Gardendale is much less than Jefferson
County as a whole based upon what one mill of ad valorem tax would yield. However, the final
determination of state aid for public schools in Alabama is not the yield per mill, but the wealth
of a local school system as measured by the yield per mill per student in ADM. This value has
been displayed above in Table 5-2 for the Jefferson County School System and shows the
wealth diluting effect of a relatively large population.
Table 5-10 summarizes Class I, II, III and IV real and personal property and determines
the yield per mill and applicable chargeback for the proposed Gardendale City School System.
Note that the chargeback or required state match is not directly based upon assessed valuation,
but yield of assessed valuation – taxes paid – after abatements, exemptions, and cost of
collection has been applied and is calculated on actual collections two years in arrears of the
budget year for public schools.
Table 5-10
Estimated Chargeback for the
Proposed Gardendale City School System for FY 2012-13
Category
2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual
Yield Per Mill
$193,316
$189,732
$189,349
$193,194
$185,020
Chargeback of 10 Mills $1,933,164
ADM*
2,214.0
2013
Estimated
$193,194
$1,897,324
$1,893,491
$1,931,940
$1,850,204
$ 1,931,940
2,214.0
2,214.0
2,214.0
2,214.0
2,214.0
Yield per Mill per ADM
$87.32
$85.70
$85.52
$87.26
$83.57
$87.26
Chargeback per ADM
$873.15
$856.97
$855.24
$872.60
$835.68
$872.60
*ADM estimated as Resident ADM for FY 2013 and is considered as constant for all fiscal years.
**Chargeback based upon yield per mill from last competed fiscal year's financial statements reported to
State Department in current year and used in budget year for appropriations and allocations.
From Table 5-10, it is seen that the Chargeback for the proposed Gardendale City
School System for FY 2012-1 would have been $1,931,940. However, for a representation of
how this compares to other school systems of the State, it is necessary to convert the yield per
mill to yield per mill per ADM. This calculation is also shown in Table 5-10. The wealth value
is $87.26 and is defined as yield per mill per ADM. From this calculation of wealth, it is shown
92
that for FY 2010-11 (the latest financial data available statewide from the State Department of
Education on budgeted local taxes is FY 2012-13) the state average yield per mill per ADM
would be $71.70 as in found in Appendix 7-10. This can be compared to other school systems
of the state as seen in Appendices 7-9 and 7-10. These data would rank the proposed
Gardendale City School System at $87.26 as between 25th and 26th in the State of Alabama in
yield per mill per ADM.
The reader should note that increasing the student population (the
denominator) while not increasing the ad valorem tax yield (the numerator) will result in a
decreased value. Wealth is not useful unless taxed for funding schools. Fortunately, Jefferson
County has a relatively high levy and collection of ad valorem taxes for schools, and in addition,
has provided the yield of a one cent countywide sales tax for capital outlay.
Table 5-2 presented the calculated yield per mill per ADM for Jefferson County for FY
2012-13 as $69.33 which ranked 45th in the State. An obvious conclusion is that the proposed
Gardendale City School System, on the basis of Alabama’s school aid formulas for determining
wealth, is wealthier than the Jefferson County School System since its available school tax
district ad valorem tax resources are distributed across a relatively low student population.
However, in turn this means that the chargeback for the proposed Gardendale City
School System for FY 2012-13 estimated to be, on a per student basis, to be $872.60 (see
Table 5-10 above) and greater than the value for the Jefferson County School System for FY
2012-13 (see Table 5-2) at $693.34. This means that due to the equalization programs of the
State, for the first 10.0 mills of local taxed based revenues, the proposed Gardendale City
School System will receive fewer state dollars from the ETF on a per pupil basis in ADM for the
purposes of the 1995 Foundation Program and fewer state dollars from the PSF for the
purposes of the 1995 Capital Purchase Allocation. The next step is to determine the total
local tax revenues that will be available on a per student basis in ADM.
Allocation of Countywide Tax Revenues within a County
As discussed in an earlier section, the first source of school taxes for the proposed
Gardendale City School System will be the apportioned share of the countywide school taxes.
These will be apportioned on the basis of the Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio of
the respective school systems of Jefferson County by general state law. Simply put, for the
purposes of this Study, the only two governmental entities to be considered are the Jefferson
County School System and the proposed Gardendale City School System. In actual
application, the total tax revenues of the county will be apportioned to each school system of the
county. However, by only considering the tax resources thus apportioned to the Jefferson
County School System, the amount which will follow students to the proposed Gardendale City
School System is a simpler but mathematically equal solution.
Therefore, the calculation will be the apportionment of countywide tax revenues currently
allocated to the Jefferson County School System to the proposed Gardendale City School
System and will be the mathematical equivalent as if the total countywide tax revenues were
apportioned among 13 school systems of Jefferson County. This will be demonstrated in Table
5-11. By taking the Foundation Program Cost for Jefferson County School System without
considering the proposed Gardendale City School System, calculating the estimated Foundation
Program for the proposed Gardendale City School System, and then subtracting it from the
original Jefferson County School System to yield the residual net Jefferson County School
System, the proportionate share to the total revenues to each of the two school systems is
available.
93
Proposed Gardendale City School System Share of Countywide Taxes
An estimated 1995 Foundation Program calculation has been created for the proposed
Gardendale City School System. Similarly, a 1995 Foundation Program calculation has been
made for the residual Jefferson County School System as if the proposed Gardendale City
School System were in actual financial operation for FY 2012-13. Each of these will be
presented later in this Chapter.
For the purposes of this calculation, the factor of 6.449425% will be used to estimate
the share (dollar amount) of countywide ad valorem taxes to be allocated to the proposed
Gardendale City School System. This calculation is shown in Table 5-11. For those counties of
the state with more than one school system, the calculations of the Countywide Foundation
Program Cost Ratio are performed annually by the State Superintendent of Education and
distributed to the respective county revenue commissioners (or similar local official) to direct the
apportionment of countywide taxes. This calculation for FY 2012-13 appears in Appendix 7-32.
The estimated Foundation Program Allocation for the proposed Gardendale City School System
will be presented in a later section.
Table 5-11
Estimated Countrywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio for Gardnedale Net
of Other School Systems in Jefferson County
FY 2012-13
Amount
School System
Percent of
Jefferson
County*
Gardendale Foundation Program
$
11,636,363
6.449425%
Jefferson County Foundation Program
Total*
$ 168,788,443
$ 180,424,806
93.550575%
100.000000%
*Note: Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio is each school system's
share of the total foundation program costs of all the school systems of the
county and is calculated annually by the State Superintendent of Education by
statute.
Since the 1995 Foundation Program cost is based upon student count in ADM, grade
level of students, and rank and experience of teachers as well as school site size in ADM, the
actual share upon financial separation may vary slightly, but not significantly from the estimate.
However, a decision to allow non-resident students to attend the proposed Gardendale City
School System will earn additional state dollars, countywide tax dollars, federal dollars, and
could fill any excess capacity.
A similar calculation can be estimated for the alternative ADM Cost Ratio which follows
in Table 5-12 and is provided as a means of comparison to demonstrate how similar the
Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio and the ADM Cost Ratio are. The important
difference is that the Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio more accurately represents
the cost of providing the education program and benefits smaller school systems.
94
Table 5-12
Estimated ADM Cost Ratio for Gardnedale Net of Other School Systems in
Jefferson County
FY 2012-13
ADM
2,214.00
33,844.15
36,058.15
School System
Gardendale Foundation Program
Jefferson County Foundation Program
Total*
Percent of
Jefferson
County*
6.140082%
93.859918%
100.000000%
Ad Valorem Tax Revenues
The calculation of the apportionment of the countywide and tax district (area for a city
school system contiguous with city boundaries) ad valorem revenues budgeted for FY 2012-13
to the proposed Gardendale City School System follows in Table 5-13. As will be seen, a
portion of the countywide ad valorem tax revenues will be apportioned by the Countywide
Foundation Program Cost Ratio and a portion will be levied and collected in the tax district
which will be the same as the city boundary of Gardendale upon final (fiscal) separation. This
analysis is performed for each separate ad valorem tax currently levied and collected by
Jefferson County as school taxes by constitutional authorization. Note that the yield of the
school tax district for Gardendale (legal boundary of the city) is based upon FY 2010-11 fiscal
year estimates of revenues to be consistent with the yield per mill used to calculate the required
local effort for the Foundation Program and the Capital Purchase Allocation.
The Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio is applied to gross ad valorem tax
collections net of cost of collection, abatements, and exemptions.
From these data, it is
projected that the proposed Gardendale City School System would receive $1,661,357 as its
share of countywide ad valorem taxes (driven by student count in ADM) and $4,230,949 in
school tax district taxes (based upon the estimated yield of a city ad valorem mill for a total of
$5,892,306. All of these ad valorem taxes are based upon current levies and estimated
collections and would be due the proposed Gardendale City School System. However, this is a
FY 2012-13 financial snapshot for one fiscal year when final fiscal separation would occur at a
later time and Gardendale ad valorem values based upon estimates for FY 2010-11. At
separation, the values would be different, but the trend and relative financial picture of the
Gardendale City School System and the Jefferson County School System would be unchanged.
Table 5-13
Estimated Gardendale Revenues from Ad Valorem Taxes
Jefferson County School System Budgeted Ad Valorem Revenues for FY 2012-13 With Estimated Gardendale Share
Section 269
Act 203*
Amendment No. 82
Amendment No. 175
Amendment No. 382
School
Tax
District
Type
County
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
Subtotal
District
District
District
District
2.1
5.4
0.7
8.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Subtotal
21.90
5.1
8.8
5.0
3.0
Revenue Budgeted for
Code
FY 2012-13
6034
6032
6030
Subtotal
6230
6235
6245
6250
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Subtotal $
Total
TOTAL ALL
6,597,015
16,963,753
2,199,005
25,759,773
13,378,484
21,701,078
12,330,158
7,398,095
54,807,815
$ 80,567,589
$ 80,567,589
36,058.15
ADM
TOTAL ALL PER ADM
*Act 203 Approved February 7, 1891
$
95
2,234.38
n/a
Gardendale
Gardendale
Share of
School Tax
Countywide
District
Tax
$
425,470
n/a
$ 1,094,065
n/a
$
141,823
n/a
$ 1,661,357
n/a
$ 985,290
n/a
$ 1,700,107
n/a
$ 965,970
n/a
$ 579,582
$ 4,230,949
n/a
n/a
$
Foundation
Program
Cost Ratio
6.449425%
6.449425%
6.449425%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,661,357
$ 4,230,949
$ 5,892,306
2,214.00
$
2,661.39
These revenues are available for general educational purposes. However, the required state
matches (required local effort or chargeback) must be met to receive state funding from the
Foundation Program and Capital Outlay Allocation from the 3.0 mill Public School Fund.
In addition, debt service must be considered as a charge against these revenues. This debt will
be discussed in a further section.
Excise, Franchise, and Privilege License Taxes
Additional revenues will be available from any countywide excise, franchise, and
privilege license taxes. The rates of sales and use taxes levied and collected in the City of
Gardendale follow in Table 5-14.
Table 5-14
SALES/USE TAX RATES PAID BY RESIDENTS OF GARDENDALE
Rate for
Rate for Farm
Category
General Rate Automobiles
Equipment
State of Alabama
4.00%
2.00%
Jefferson County
Gardendale City
4.00%
Total
10.00%
Current Tax Rates as of February 25, 2013
2.00%
1.50%
0.75%
0.75%
0.75%
3.50%
1.00%
3.25%
The one cent Jefferson County Sales and Use Tax is authorized by a local act of the
Legislature (405) and is not dedicated to public education. The County Commission has
exercised its authority granted by Section 40-12-4 to levy a one cent general sales/use tax
which can be used for educational purposes only. However, the proceeds of this sales/use are
pledged for repayment of the 2004 and 2005 revenue warrants issued by the County
Commission on behalf of the public schools of the county for school construction. The proceeds
of this tax are not available for general educational purposes (see Appendix 7-38 for debt
service schedule). Therefore, the proposed Gardendale City School System will not receive
local sales/use tax revenues until provided by the City Council.
However, there are countywide taxes in additional to ad valorem taxes which shall be
shared as found in in Table 5-15 which follows:
Table 5-15
Estimated Gardendale Share of Non Ad Valorem Countywide Taxes
Fiscal
Year
School System
Account
Code
2013
Gardendale City
6095
Business Privilege Tax
$960,000 6.449425%
$61,914
2013
Gardendale City
6140
County Alcohol Beverage Tax
$820,000 6.449425%
$52,885
2013
Gardendale City
6170
County Mineral Lease Documentary Tax
$150 6.449425%
$10
2013
Gardendale City
6370
Helping Schools-Vehicles Tags
$26,000 6.449425%
$1,677
2013
Gardendale City
6380
Manufactured Homes-Registration Fee
$12,000 6.449425%
$774
Account Code Title*
TOTAL LOCAL NON AD VALOREM TAX-BASED REVENUES
Budgeted
Amount
$1,818,150
FP Cost
Ratio
n/a
Gardendale
Share
$117,260
*Several of these taxes are determined by tax base in the City of Gardendale but are estimated here by the Countywide Foundation
Program Cost Ratio.
96
From Table 5-15, it is estimated that the proposed Gardendale City School System would have
received $117,260 in these tax revenues for FY 2012-13 in addition to ad valorem taxes.
Other Local School System Revenues
Tax-Based Local Revenues
The range of local tax-based revenues to be received by the proposed Gardendale City
School System has been delineated. These include the school tax district local ad valorem
taxes which will be levied and collected in the same manner as a municipal ad valorem tax.
While the City Council of Gardendale could allocate City tax revenues in the future to the
proposed city school system (a prospective event), the current allocation of city resources to the
school sites in the City of Gardendale can be presented. These are shown in Table 5-16:
Table 5-16
Fiscal
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
City of Gardendale Appropriations to School Sites
Snow
Rogers
Bragg
Gardendale
Maintenance
Gardendale
Middle
Elementary Elementary
High School School
School
School
Contributions*
$0
$13,950
$10,800
$4,050
$26,200
$2,719
$17,535
$15,196
$12,800
$4,469
$15,000
$13,500
$4,500
$9,942
$27,500
$4,121
$14,033
$14,322
$13,718
$27,839
$14,444
$3,834
$3,391
$17,606
$14,116
$3,770
$0
$0
$0
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,970
$4,677
$13,975
$6,210
$7,155
$2,700
$1,100
$8,910
$6,480
$7,695
TOTAL
$55,000
$52,719
$70,442
$74,033
$53,391
$6,770
$0
$34,987
$26,885
$41,581
Average Over Nine Years
*Budget Appropriations allocated to maintenance of area school grounds with City donating
labor plus allocated funds.
The City of Gardendale Parks & Recreation department provides in-kind labor for various
projects at area schools. The schools provide materials at cost and the City provides labor to
provide playground upgrades, batting cages, fences, and other projects needed by the local
schools.
There is a variety of taxes and other revenues received by the Jefferson County Board
of Education to be shared with the proposed Gardendale City School System. A portion of
these revenues are taxed-based and are from such sources such as excise, franchise and
privilege license taxes. Others such as interest, rents, fees, and royalties are non-taxed based.
Since the tax–based revenues are countywide resources, a share of these tax-based revenues
will be due the proposed Gardendale City School System annually also based upon the
Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio. A summary of these local tax-based revenues
estimated is found in the following Table 5-17:
Table 5-17
Estimated Local Tax-Based Revenues for
Proposed Gardendale City School System
Category
Amount
Ad Valorem Taxes
$
5,892,306
Other Countywide Taxes
$
117,260
$
41,581
City Council Appropriations
TOTAL
$
6,051,147
97
Local Non Tax-Based Revenues
Some non tax-based local revenues also could be expected to be earned in the same
fashion. This calculation is performed in Table 5-18 which follows for other non-ad valorem
taxes and revenues. The types of revenues are found in Chapter 4 and were presented earlier
in the revenues to the Jefferson County Board of Education. The majority of these revenues
can be attributed to food service income and revenues generated at local school sites. The
estimated amount for the proposed Gardendale City School System follows in Table 5-18:
Table 5-18
Estimated Local Non Tax-Based Revues for
Year
2013
Code
School System
Account Code Title
Gardendale City (6800-7999) Local Sources
Amount
$1,250,620.56
When summarizing the local resources that would be available to the proposed
Gardendale City School System, several phenomena are at work in the calculations. The first is
that the actual current 1995 Foundation Program chargeback for Jefferson County is $693.34
per ADM (see Table 5-19 which follows). Of course this is a function of tax capacity divided by
the number of students in ADM. The estimated chargeback for the proposed Gardendale City
School System is $972.60 per ADM. This means that the local share is greater in a per student
basis for the proposed Gardendale City School System than for the Jefferson County School
System which means proportionately smaller ETF share and greater local share for the
proposed Gardendale City School System. It also means that the residual Jefferson County
School System, net of Gardendale, is slightly wealthier than before separation: the decreased
chargeback is $681.61 or a decrease of $11.73 per ADM.
Table 5-19
Summary of Jefferson County and Gardendale Chargeback Per ADM Estimated for FY 2012-13
Chargeback Per
State Aid Program
Chargeback
ADM
ADM
Current Jefferson County School System
$
25,000,580
36,058.15 $
693.34
$
1,931,940
2,214.00 $
872.60
Residual Jefferson County School System
$
23,068,640
33,844.15 $
681.61
The second effect is that since countywide ad valorem taxes are apportioned basically
on ADM share, the proportionate share per student to Gardendale is actually greater per mill of
tax levy than if the countywide tax had been a city or school tax district tax. On a per mill basis
the proposed Gardendale City School System is estimated to receive $202,602 per countywide
mill, while the estimated yield of a Gardendale tax district mill is $193,194. However this small
difference should be considered meaningless since the Jefferson County yield per mill is based
on estimated revenues for FY 2012-13 and the Gardendale City mill is based upon estimated
revenues for FY 2010-11. The third is that the 1995 Capital Purchase Allocation, also being
determined in a methodology similar to the chargeback and thus the state allocation being
based upon ad valorem wealth, results in a proportionately smaller state share and larger local
share for the proposed Gardendale City School System than calculated for Jefferson County.
Miscellaneous Local Revenues
As earlier presented in Table 5-18, additional minor local revenues will be generated
from activities of the local board of education such as from renting school property, indirect cost
recovery from federal funds, local school site internal revenues, tuition charged, and revenues
98
from the child nutrition program (CNP), etc. No attempt to estimate these amounts by line item
will be attempted in this study. However, an understanding of the restricted nature of these
funds is important in describing the board of education's relationship to the revenues.
School Internal Funds: Public and Non-Public
School Funds generated internally within a school site are accounted for in the
accounting system. In Alabama, the funds maintained at the local schools are recorded in two
major categories: (1) Public Funds and (2) Non-Public Funds. This Alabama state
accounting system is designed in compliance with federal reporting requirements as developed
by the National Center for Education Statistics.
(1) Public Funds generally contain revenues that are generated by a school-wide
activity. The revenues thus generated are unrestricted and can be expended for the benefit of
all students. These funds are controlled primarily by the principal.
(2) Non-Public Funds contain revenues that are generated for a specific group. The
revenues are restricted to be expended for the benefit of that specific group. These funds are
controlled by the sponsor/students of the specific group and/or the parental organization.
Consequently, these revenues represent two very different types of activities. Therefore, they
are recorded in the accounting system differently. The proper classification is discussed in the
following sections.
Public Funds are always recorded as Special Revenue funds under Governmental
Funds in the State accounting system. Examples follow in Table 5-20:
Table 5-20
Revenue Sources - Type 12
Local School Revenue – Public
Revenue Account Code
(7000-7499)
7110
7140
7180
7220
7260
7300
7340
7380
7420
7430
7440
7490
Admissions
Appropriations
Concessions
Commissions
Dues & Fees (Required)
Fines & Penalties
Fund Raiser
Grants
Sales
Donations
Accommodations
Other
Non-Public Funds are always classified as Fiduciary Funds in the accounting system
and are designated as Expendable Trust Funds. They are held in trust by the school for
expenditure only at the direction of and on behalf of selected individuals or groups. The
accounting of these funds is found in Table 5-21.
Table 5-21
Revenue Codes for Non-Public Funds – Type 32
Local School Revenue - Non Public
Revenue Account Code
(7500-7999)
7510
7610
Concessions
Dues & Fees (Self-imposed)
99
Fund Raiser
Donations
Accommodations
Other
7710
7810
7850
7910
These funds are budgeted annually by each local school site. For the schools serving the
students residing in Gardendale, a summary of these funds follow in Table 5-22. It should be
noted that these budgeted amounts are generated from a student population approximately
50% greater than the resident student population of Gardendale.
Table 5-22
Summary of School Internal Funds Budgeted for FY 2012-13
Public
Non-Public
Total
School Site
$ 121,290 $
$
Bragg Middle School
$ 242,575 $
$ 269,705 $
35,650 $ 278,225
109,730 $ 379,435
$ 666,270 $
145,680 $ 811,950
Total
- $ 121,290
32,700 $
300 $
33,000
While these funds are very important to the operation of these schools, they will not be
counted in a consideration of the fiscal capacity and feasibility of the proposed Gardendale City
School System. They are restricted to spending at the school site where generated and are not
available for educational initiatives of the local board of education. They are, of course, a
function of the student population and the support of the school community. These funds are
included in the reported revenues per student and expenditures per student of the school
systems of Alabama by the Alabama State Department of Education.
A summary of the local taxes and other revenues for FY 2012-13 for the proposed
Gardendale City School System is provided in the following Table 5-23. The reader is again
cautioned that Local Sources from Non-Taxes are generally not available for purposes of the
board of education.
Table 5-23
Estimated Total Local Revenues for
Revenue Source
LOCAL SOURCES (6000-6090, 6210-6290 ) from Ad Valorem Taxes
LOCAL SOURCES (6095-6190, 6310,6390) from Non-Ad Valorem Taxes
LOCAL SOURCES (6800-7999) from Non-Taxes
OTHER SOURCES (8000-8999)
GARDENDALE CITY COUNCIL APPROPRIATIONS
Total Local Estimated Revenues
Estimated
Revenues
$
$
$
$
$
5,892,306
117,260
1,250,621
57,357
41,581
$
7,359,125
City of Gardendale Sales Tax
Many municipalities either dedicate a sales/use tax for their city school system or
annually appropriate the proceeds. In addition any other excise, franchise, or privilege license
tax can be levied and collected by a city council and allocation to the city school system. The
following Table 5-24 illustrates potential local tax-based revenues that could be provided the
proposed Gardendale City School System:
100
Table 5-24
Yield of a Gardendale City Sales/Use Tax
Calculation of the Yield of a One Percent General Sales Tax in the
City of Gardendale
Fiscal Year
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
2009 - 2010
2010 - 2011
2011 - 2012
7 Year Avg.
General Rate
Net Sales
$254,246,686
$267,797,918
$252,007,915
$236,800,896
$228,853,553
$230,934,985
$236,135,784
$243,825,391
General
Sales Tax
Rate
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
n/a
General
General Sales
Rate Sales Tax Yield Per
Tax
Penny of Sales
Tax Rate
Collections
$10,169,867
$2,542,467
$10,711,917
$2,677,979
$10,080,317
$2,520,079
$9,472,036
$2,368,009
$9,154,142
$2,288,536
$9,237,399
$2,309,350
$9,445,431
$2,361,358
$9,753,016
$2,438,254
Note that this table does not include the selective sales/use tax applied to agriculture,
automotive, and manufacturing equipment. A one percent levy in the City of Gardendale on
these items would only generate about $175,000 and would represent an unsustainable tax
increase. In addition, many cities have found the yield of a one percent sales tax to generate a
great deal of revenue when compared to a one mill tax ad valorem tax increase which has been
estimated at about $194,000 for the City of Gardendale. On the plus side of the ad valorem tax
levy is the fact that it is levied and collected on all utility, business, and homeowners (including
agricultural and timber property) and also motor vehicles.
C. PROPOSED GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM
STATE REVENUES FOR FY 2012-13
The proposed Gardendale City School System would participate in the allocation of all
state revenues provided for public school operations, including the 1995 Foundation Program,
the 1995 Capital Purchase Allocation, Transportation Program (this is an optional decision of
city boards of education), and other line items and special funds appropriated by the
Legislature. The 1995 Foundation Program is by far the largest. In Table 5-25, which follows,
the Foundation Program and other allocations for the four school sites schools predominately
serve the vast majority of Gardendale residents of school ages, is presented.
Budgeting by School Site
When analyzing the potential financial operation of a school system, resources gross
and on a per student basis that are available to the schools which serve the student residents of
Gardendale, while of interest, do not answer the question of the feasibility of such an operation.
While these amounts are the Foundation Program allocation budgeted at each school site, the
state only requires that the state allocation for professional and support staff included within
these calculations be budgeted at the school site where earned in meeting classroom cap
limitations (teachers units must be budgeted where earned unless a waiver is granted by the
State Superintendent of Education) imposed by the State Board of Education. But state law
further provides additional guidance regarding the local board of education’s responsibility to
allocate state and local Foundation Program funds to each school:
The local board of education shall allocate state and local Foundation Program
funds to each school in an equitable manner, based on the needs of the students and the
schools, as reflected in the current year's actual student populations, including at-risk
101
students, students receiving special education services, and students enrolled in
vocational/technical educational programs. The local board of education shall report
annually to the State Board of Education on how all state and local funds for public
education, including Foundation Program funds and capital outlay funds, have been
allocated to each of its schools or area vocational centers (Code of Alabama 1975,
Section 16-13-231(b)(1)d).
Irrespective of the any statutory conflict between budgeting Foundation Program funds
(ETF and local share) where earned versus where needed by students currently enrolled, given
the financial guidance given to local boards of education in preparing budgets for local budget
hearing, the documentation which follows does not address the allocation of the chargeback by
school site nor the allocation of the proceeds of “Other Current Expense” by school site. For
these and other reasons, the financial feasibility of a local school system is best viewed as a
whole and not by school sites. And as will be discussed in Chapter 6, the best single criterion
is not state funds alone, federal funds alone, or local funds alone. It is the net local tax-based
resources available to a local board of education after meeting state matching requirements. It
is only these resources that the local board of education can exercise control over and use for
providing for mandated and optional expenditures that are not provided for in state school aid
formulas. A detailed analysis of this issue will follow, and a school system by school system
analysis of the result of net local taxes after match will be found in Appendices 7-15 and 7-16.
Budgeting of Certificated Personnel
This budgeting law requires resources to be allocated according to the current year’s
needs of students and thus gives the local board of education flexibility, whereas current year’s
allocations are based upon prior year enrollment. The certificated units earned by the affected
Jefferson County school sites for FY 2012-13 follow in Table 5-25 as would be earned under
the proposed student count in ADM for residents only of Gardendale.
These are stateallocated and funded units.
102
Table 5-25
Estimated Foundation Program Cost by Cost Center
for the Proposed Gardendale City School System for FY 2012-13
State Department of Education
Estimate of FY 2013 Foundation Program Calculations
000
FY 2013
0300
K-05
818.00
Snow
Rogers
Elementary
School
0840
K-05
239.00
Proposed System ADM
Foundation Program Units
Teachers
Principals
Counselors
Librarians
Voc. Ed. Directors
Voc. Ed. Counselors
Total Units
51.18
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
-
Foundation Program (State & Local Funds)
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Other Current Expense
Classroom Instructional Support Total
Student Materials and Supplies
Technology
Library Enhancement
Common Purchase
Textbooks Per ADM
Current Units
FY 2013
FY 2013
0095
06-08
496.00
0130
09-12
661.00
14.72
1.00
0.50
0.50
-
23.70
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-
56.18
16.72
27.70
35.83
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
44.83
125.42
1.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
142.42
2,621,730
963,916
840,329
42,498
16,854
25,644
n/a
823,739
302,859
250,121
12,509
5,016
7,493
n/a
1,326,236
487,609
414,285
23,859
8,309
15,550
n/a
2,063,361
758,624
670,516
34,170
13,448
20,722
n/a
6,835,066
2,513,009
2,175,252
113,036
43,627
69,409
-
Bragg Middle
School
Gardendale
High School
FY 2013
Per Unit
36.77%
$ 14,958.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
300.00
31.35
-
11,636,363
Total Foundation Program.
Foundation Program Cost from ETF
State Funds - Categorical Aid
Student Health Data
Transportation
Operating Allocation
Fleet Renewal
At Risk
At-Risk Program - ASIMS
Board of Adjustment Awards
FY 2013
Proposed
Gardendale
City School
System
000
K-12
2,214.00
Gardendale
Elementary
School
School Code
Grades
FY 2013
9,704,423
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Subtotal ETF Categorical Aid Programs
Subtotal ETF from Appropriation Bill
SDE Allocations
High Hopes Program (HS Graduation Exam Remediation)
High Hopes Program to link home computers to ASIMS
Preschool Program
Total from ETF
Capital Purchase
Debt Service
Subtotal PSF
Total State Funds
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
485,458
11,364,422
Local Funds
Foundation Program Match
Capital Purchase Match
Total Local Funds
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,931,940
201,202
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,133,142
APSCA
Per Chassis
Number Mills
10.000000
1.041451
103
26,813
68,450
880,476
122,947
59,011
1,157,697
10,862,120
13,546
3,298
10,878,964
485,458
-
Table 5-26 contains a summary of employees budgeted for FY 2012-13 at the school
sites of the Jefferson County School System located in the City of Gardendale.
Table 5-26
Certificated Teacher Units Earned at School Sites of
Gardendale City School System for FY 2012-13
Type
of Personnel
Classification
Teachers
Librarians
Counselors
Administrators
Total
Number By
BS
73.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Level of Degree
DO
6Y
MS
95.40 5.50 1.00
4.00 1.00 0.00
6.50 0.50 0.00
5.00 5.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Total
Employees
Source of Funds
ND State Earned Other State Federal
167.00
2.75
1.70
5.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
0.00
6.50
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
13.50
186.00
1.70
Local
3.95
0.50
0.50
3.00
0.00
11.00
18.95
178.15
5.00
7.00
11.00
0.00
19.00
220.15
From this summary it is easily seen that the 186.00 state-funded certificated personnel for FY
2012-13, is much greater than the estimated 142.42 to be earned in the Foundational Program
calculation contained in Table 5-25 above. These excess personnel will be absorbed into the
proposed Gardendale City School System by the statutory provisions contained in Chapter 6.
However, several factors may serve to reduce this number. (1) Teachers retire or resign for a
number of reasons annually. (2) Normally in a separation agreement, tenured and non-tenured
teachers may be offered employment at alternative school sites in Jefferson County. (3)
Teachers who have not obtained continuing employment statues may be terminated with
reason. (4) And a different solution is that non-resident students may be allowed to attend the
school sites of Gardendale City thus creating the need for the additional teachers.
Table 5-26 also demonstrates that 1.7 teachers are funded through separate state line
items. Similar opportunities would accrue to the proposed Gardendale City School System.
Federal funds fund 5.5 professional personnel. Federal funds will be earned by the proposed
Gardendale City School System, but the nature of the student population and the federal
programs in effect at financial separation will determine the amount of federal funding available.
Local Jefferson County School System revenues are funding 7.95 professional teacher units. A
decision would have to be made by the proposed Gardendale City Board of Education regarding
the number of teachers and administrators above the state minimum that are needed to
implement the educational program approved.
Foundation Program and Categorical Aid Allocations Estimated for FY 2012-13
The preceding Table 5-25 has detailed the projected state revenues the proposed
Gardendale City School System would have been allocated in FY 2012-13 based upon the
numbers of students which have been projected as actually residing in the City of Gardendale.
In addition, there are state categorical aid programs to be considered and potential allocations
of line items appropriated to the State Department of Education. The largest of these programs
is the Capital Purchase Allocation. The determination of the projected value of the
chargeback based on the ad valorem tax wealth of the City of Gardendale is also used in the
estimation of a Capital Purchase Allocation from the Public School Fund which is also based
on yield of a mill of ad valorem tax per student.
104
Should the board of education decide to create a student transportation program, it
would be a state-funded program, although inadequately funded by the Legislature requiring the
expenditure of local tax revenues. An allocation for transportation is also included in the
following summary in Table 5-28. Transportation equipment of the Jefferson County School
System serving the attendance sites of the schools of the City of Gardendale would become the
property of the proposed Gardendale City School System. A summary of this transportation
equipment is found in Appendix 7-34. It is noteworthy that all transportation is paid for and
there is no debt.
Capital Purchase Program Allocation Estimated for FY 2012-13
The proposed Gardendale City School System would earn an annual allocation for
Capital Purchase (acquisition of land, renovation, construction, etc.) from the State Public
School Fund on a matching basis known as the Capital Purchase Allocation. These funds
would be available annually for capital purchase needs as the local board might identify,
including new construction, renovation or debt service. The state share and local match is
found in Table 5-27 along with several other school systems for comparison to demonstrate that
the equalization provisions do result in the same total amount from state and local sources per
student in ADM (see Appendices 7-13 and 7-14 for allocations for FY 2012-13.
Table 5-27
Estimated Capital Purchase Allocation
for the Proposed Gardendale City School System for FY 2012-13
System
Number
143
144
0
146
154
System Description
Fort Payne City
Gadsden City
Gardendale City
Geneva City
Guntersville City
System
Yield Per
Mill
$ 162,537
$ 387,852
$ 193,194
$ 38,367
$ 128,888
System
ADM
3,026.55
5,455.35
2,212.00
1,245.65
1,933.30
Yield Per
Mill Per
Mills
ADM
Equalized
$ 53.70
1.041451
$ 71.10
1.041451
$ 87.34
1.041451
$ 30.80
1.041451
$ 66.67
1.041451
State
Capital
Purchase
Allocation
$ 770,242
$ 1,289,548
$ 485,458
$ 346,724
$ 465,914
Local
Capital
Purchase
Allocation
$ 169,274
$ 403,929
$ 201,202
$
39,957
$ 134,231
TOTAL
PER
ADM
$ 310.42
$ 310.42
$ 310.42
$ 310.42
$ 310.42
As seen in the preceding table, for a local contribution of $201,202, the proposed Gardendale
City School System would receive $485,458 for capital outlay purposes. The reader should
note that in addition to the 10.0 mills already required to match the state allocation in the 1995
Foundation Program, an additional 1.041451 mills must be pledged for capital outlay to meet
the state match for the 1995 Capital Purchase Allocation. With the legislative change to the
approval local uses of these funds, they could also be used to pay for local debt.
Participation in Capital Purchase Allocation Pooled Purchase through APSCA. If the
proposed Gardendale City School System had been in existence in FY 2012-13, it would have
earned a state allocation for capital outlay. The intent of the legislation authorizing this
allocation is that the amount from the state could be used on a pay-as-you-go basis, escrowed
for future capital purchase expenditures, or pledged for repayment of a “Pooled Purchase” bond
issue from the APSCA (Alabama Public School and College Authority). The Pooled Purchase
bond issue would allow the proposed Gardendale City School System to pledge up to 95% of
the projected state allocation to be intercepted by the State Comptroller and paid to the APSCA
to retire the debt obligation (a more realistic percentage could be 80% which is the statutorily
permissible limit for local revenue warrant issues).
The amount of the Pooled Purchase
available to the proposed Gardendale City School System would be in increments of $5,000 and
contingent upon interest rates at time of bond sale less shared underwriting costs.
105
Alabama Public School and College Authority Bond Issue.
The proposed Gardendale
City School System could participate in the next Alabama Public School and College Authority
Bond Issue funded by the state from the proceeds of the four cent sales tax. The critical issue
would be the decision of the City Council to pass a resolution forming the new city school
system and the effective date in the legislation authorizing such a new bond issue which is
payable from the first proceeds of the four cent state sales tax before net sales tax revenues are
credited to the ETF. However, given the large debt service assumed by the state in the 2007
issue, a future issue is unlikely. The total APSCA debt service will escalate dramatically in the
near future due to the Riley Administration refinancing existing debt service payments to limit
such payments through FY 2012 and escalate them thereafter. Sales tax revenues paid for
debt service in this manner then are not available for appropriation for annual operations of
schools.
The following Table 5-28 summarizes the estimated total state revenues that the
proposed Gardendale City School System could have earned in FY 2012-13:
Table 5-28
Estimate of Total State Revenues for
Fiscal
Year
2013
School System
Gardendale City
Account
Code
Account Code Title
1110
Foundation Program - Regular
Budgeted
Amount
$9,704,422.75
2013
Gardendale City
1220
$68,450.43
2013
Gardendale City
1221
$26,813.00
2013
Gardendale City
1240
High School Graduation Exam Remediation
2013
Gardendale City
1310
Transportation - Operations
$880,475.79
2013
Gardendale City
2256
Act 2012-562 Fleet Renewal
$122,946.66
2013
Gardendale City
1222
Career Tech O & M
2013
Gardendale City
2120
Public School Fund- Capital Outlay
2013
Gardendale City
1410
At Risk
2013
Gardendale City
1520
Preschool
2013
Gardendale City
1230
Alabama Reading Initiative
2013
Gardendale City
1250
Childrens First - Alabama Tobacco Settlement
2013
Gardendale City
1252
English as a Second Language - State
$5,417.07
2013
Gardendale City
1275
Gifted Education
$3,187.95
$13,546.00
$16,705.43
$485,457.98
$59,011.16
TOTAL STATE REVENUES
$3,297.84
$71,012.94
$7,813.99
$11,468,558.99
A reasonable expectation is that these programs will continue for the foreseeable future;
however, their level of funding is uncertain.
D. PROPOSED GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM
FEDERAL REVENUES FOR FY 2012-13
Federal funds cannot be considered when calculating the financial feasibility of a
proposed new city school system to meet state requirements. Federal funding is meant to
supplement, not supplant, state funding requirements (any combination of state and local
funds). While there may be limited federal flexibility to use some federal funds in this manner,
for purposes of the feasibility study, they will not be included. Federal funds are not significant
to the evaluation of the feasibility of the proposed Gardendale City School System. That is not
to say they are not important, but the significant education costs of the proposed city school
system will be carried by state and local funds. Federal funds, like state funds and countywide
106
local funds, follow the students whom they are designated to serve. It doesn’t matter which
school system or school a given student may attend; the designated federal funds will follow
and support that student. Proportionate shares of all of these budgeted expenditures from
federal, State, and local revenue sources will be available to the proposed Gardendale City
School System. Table 5-29 summarizes federal revenues by source which are budgeted for FY
2012-13 for the Jefferson County School System and which demonstrate the wide variety of
designations available. There is, of course, no guarantee as to which federal programs will be
funded in FY 2013-14 and beyond.
Table 5-29
Federal Revenues Budgeted for FY 2012-13 for the Jefferson County School System
Fiscal
Year
School System
2013 Jefferson County
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Account
Code
3210 IDEA-Part B
Budgeted
Amount
$8,483,716.00
Account Code Title
3220 Pre-School Part B-Ages 3-5
3310 Basic Grant
4110 Title I, Part A
4130 Title II, Part A - Teacher and Principal Training
4150 Title III - English Lang. Adq., Lang. Enhance. & Acad.
4195 Title X - Homelss Education
5110 USDA-School Lunch Program-Section 11
5125 USDA-After School Snack Program
5130 USDA-School Breakfast Program
5135 USDA-Severe Need Breakfast Program
5160 USDA-Food Donation Program
5192 USDA-Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program (FFVP)
TOTAL Federal Funds
$193,415.00
$418,440.00
$7,820,645.00
$1,100,977.00
$189,631.00
$92,000.00
$8,080,000.00
$6,900.00
$359,500.00
$2,217,500.00
$1,054,200.00
$312,564.66
$30,329,488.66
Since there is no certainty of the amount and nature in federal program funds for FY
2013-14 and beyond and since they, for the most part, follow students in accord with
educational needs, and since their spending purpose is predominately restricted, an estimate for
FY 2012-13 can only be based upon the above allocations. This estimate for the proposed
Gardendale City School System follows in Table 5-30:
Table 5-30
Estimated Federal Funding for
Fiscal
Year
School System
2013
Gardendale City
Account
Code
Budgeted
Amount
Account Code Title
3000 to
Federal Sources
5999
$
1,956,078
As will be seen in the following Table 5-31, Federal Revenues are estimated to account
for 9.39% of estimated revenues, while state and local funds are estimated to account for
90.61%. Any speculation regarding allocation of federal funds depends upon actions of
Congress, grants actually received by the proposed Gardendale City School System, and the
educational needs of students who actually attend. Also, with federal budget cuts in effect at
the time of this writing and additional budget cuts planned, there will be further reliance on state
and local funding by all public school systems in Alabama.
107
E. PROPOSED GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM
TOTAL REVENUES FOR FY 2012-13
The following financial resources have been estimated to be available to the proposed
(1) The state allocations are shown not as program cost, but net amount from the state
(less chargeback and/or local match).
(2)
Federal revenues are shown as previously discussed and estimated.
(3)
Local revenues are shown as previously estimated.
(a) The Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio is being applied to
countywide tax-based revenues (using Foundation Program Based rather
than ADM Based) which are 8.2 mills of ad valorem plus several low yield
other countywide taxes also apportioned by the Countywide ADM Ratio;
(b) The yield of the 21.9 mill school tax district tax being based upon the
estimated ad valorem tax yield per mill of the City of Gardendale; and
(c) The other local revenues derived from non-tax sources.
The summary of these revenue sources follows in Table 5-31. It is important to note
that the majority of in-state funding will come from the 1995 Foundation Program. The
continuing experience of local boards of education, even prior to the current recession, has
been the necessity to reduce the number of personnel paid from local funds. This is becoming
the normal staffing arrangement, particularly in light of increases in fringe benefit costs and state
funding insufficient to meet demands for educational services mandated by the State. Given the
financial reductions imposed by several years of proration and the additional reduction for FY
2012-13 imposed by the Rolling Reserve Act, the 1995 Foundation Program which is the
minimum educational program as defined by the state, is now the maximum educational
program that most boards of education can offer.
The ultimate financial reality for most local boards of education today is that without local
tax-based revenues in excess of the 10.0 mill equivalency local match for the 1995 Foundation
Program and the approximately one mill equivalency local match for the 1995 Capital
Purchase Program, they could not financially survive. Any expectation that the local taxes
generated by Amendment 778, the 10.0 mill local ad valorem tax levy and collection mandate,
would be sufficient to meet local needs displays a woeful lack of understanding both the costs of
operating a local school system and the inadequacy of local revenues for that purpose
generated by the equivalent of 10.0 local mills of school tax district ad valorem tax.
As a matter of fact, at least 11.0+ local school tax district mills are necessary just to meet
the state match requirement and cannot serve to pay for local necessary expenditures, such as
the function of General Administrative Services and enhanced instructional programs. The
chargeback is thus the mathematical equivalent of 11.0+ mills of local taxes actually being a
state tax levy. While not sent to the state, these revenues are considered to be available for
state purposes just as if they were levied and sent to the state for allocation back to local boards
of education.
108
Table 5-31
Total Estimated Revenues for the
Source of
Estimated
Percent of
Revenue
Amount
Total
State
$
11,468,559
55.03%
Federal
$
1,956,078
9.39%
Local
$
7,359,125
35.31%
Other
$
57,357
0.28%
TOTAL
$
20,841,119
100.00%
Restricted Local Revenues
All of the estimated local revenues are not available for general budgeting by the
proposed Gardendale City Board of Education. Restrictions of several types exist and must be
accounted for first. They follow.
1.
The local match must be met to receive state funds. Since the Foundation Program
match must be made in current revenues available for the spending purposes of the
Foundation Program, they must be unrestricted. This amount has been previously
estimated at $ 1,931,940. The match for the Capital Purchase Allocation from the Public
School Fund of $201,202 must also be made. Since this match can be from existing
debt service, the dollar amount is relatively small as is the annual debt service to be
assumed by the proposed Gardendale City School System.
2.
Annual Debt Service Payments on debt to be assumed from the Jefferson County
School System total about $370,100. It has been previously estimated that the total of
state and local share of the 1995 Capital Purchase Allocation would total $686,660.
While these revenues also will cover debt assumed debt service, it is a reasonable
expectation that the citizens of Gardendale that a newly created city school system
would anticipate both an improved program of instruction and an improved shelter of that
program – the buildings. Also projected growth in student enrollment must be
considered.
3.
Revenues must be identified to provide for central administrative services of the
proposed Gardendale City Board of Education. Generally it is assumed that these costs
should not exceed 4.0% of the budgeted revenue from all revenue sources. This would
mean no more than $833,645 should be budgeted for General Administrative Services.
However, a more conservative view should be taken.
Since the Jefferson County
School System reports in Table 5-32 a budget share of 2.84% for General
Administrative Services, or $9,261,310 for central administration or $256.84 per student
in ADM. A comparable expenditure for the proposed Gardendale City School System
at 2.84% of estimated budget would be $591,888. On a similar amount per student, the
estimated budget would be $568,652. On the basis of these calculations, salaries paid,
number of positions filled, General Administrative Services should range from $600,000
to $700,000. Because of the diminished economy of scale of a smaller school system,
the cost may tend to the top of the range. Additional local revenues therefore might be
recommended in the range of $100,000 to $200,000.
109
Table 5-32
Budgeted Expenditures by Function for the
Jefferson County School System for FY 2012-13
Expenditures
Amount
Percent of
Total
ADM
Expenditure by
Function Per
ADM
Instructional Services
$
170,666,127
52.28%
36,058.15
$
4,733.08
Instructional Support Services
$
52,482,291
16.08%
36,058.15
$
1,455.49
Operation and Maintenance Services
$
29,040,131
8.90%
36,058.15
$
805.37
Auxiliary Services
$
43,205,373
13.24%
36,058.15
$
1,198.21
$
9,261,310
2.84%
36,058.15
$
256.84
Capital Outlay
$
1,996,896
0.61%
36,058.15
$
55.38
Debt Service
$
14,251,620
4.37%
36,058.15
$
395.24
Other Expenditures
$
5,514,539
1.69%
36,058.15
$
152.93
$
326,418,286
100.00%
36,058.15
$
9,052.55
Total Expenditures
Strictly on the basis of making a comparison with other school systems of the State
using the latest data provided from the Alabama State Department of Education for FY 20122013, the local tax-based revenues projected to be available to the proposed Gardendale City
School System after meeting required state matches appear in the following Table 5-33:
Table 5-33
Net Local Tax Revenues to Gardendale Net of Mandated State Matches
Local Tax-Based Revenues and Mandated Expenditues
Jefferson
County School
System
REVENUES:
LOCAL SOURCES (6000-6090, 6210-6290 ) from Ad Valorem Taxes
LOCAL SOURCES (6095-6190, 6310,6390) from Non-Ad Valorem Taxes
Total Tax-Based Revenues
MANDATED EXPENDITUES:
1995 Foundation Program Local Match
1995 Capital Purchase Allocation Local Match
Total Mandated Expenditures
NET UNRESTRICTED LOCAL REVENUES
ESTIMATED RESIDENT ADM
NET UNRESTRICTED LOCAL REVENUES PER ADM
Proposed
Gardendale City
School System
$80,567,589
$1,818,150
$82,385,739
$
$
5,892,306
117,260
$
6,009,567
$
$
25,000,580
2,595,013
$
$
1,931,940
201,202
$
27,595,593
$
2,133,142
$
54,790,146
36,058.15
1,519.49
$
3,876,424
2,214.00
1,750.87
$
$
These data seem to indicate a healthy access to local tax-based revenues on a per
student basis. The results from Table 5-33 project Gardendale to rank between 25th and 26th,
and the Jefferson County Public Schools for FY 2012-13 to rank 37th statewide (see
Appendices 7-15 and 7-16).
However, the review of the estimated financial situation is not complete until, in addition
to a reasonable mandated expenditure for General Administrative Services (Central Office) is
included, a review of debt load is considered and personnel issues are considered. This follows
in Chapter 6; and additional special attention is due to the fact that the 1995 Foundation
Program Match must be paid from the General Fund only as well as the expenditures for the
Central Office. However, the cost for this service is included in the unrestricted local tax
revenues for the Jefferson County Board of Education; so a proportionate amount should be
included in the unrestricted local tax revenues for the proposed Gardendale City School
System. In addition, consideration should be made for excess cost inefficiency compared to the
Jefferson County School System for debt, transportation, number of classrooms, and additional
personnel. All of these items will be analyzed in Chapter 6.
110
Fiscal Effort of the Proposed Gardendale City School System
Fiscal Effort is a measure of the extent to which a government's fiscal capacity is
actually used. It measures actual tax revenue in relation to tax capacity. Fiscal effort is normally
defined as the ratio of tax collections to tax capacity. The idea is that communities that try hard
to raise taxes but that still cannot finance an acceptable level of public services, are worthy of
receiving supplemental state resources. This is exactly the way the 1995 Foundation Program
and the 1995 Capital Purchase Program operate. If local boards of education make the fiscal
effort, whatever they lack in fiscal capacity or wealth is provided by the State.
Equivalent Mills
In Alabama, Fiscal Effort is determined by the number of equivalent mills from taxbased resources. Since Fiscal Effort must be measured by the State-determined criterion
stipulated to be used to measure Fiscal Capacity, this is an inevitable consequence of
Alabama’s tax policy – fiscal effort is based upon what a mill of local school tax district ad
valorem tax is worth, but any local tax can be used in determining the number of equivalent
mills. The simple outcome of this policy is that most local boards of education have, over the
years, been forced to rely more heavily on the sales/use tax.
To make this calculation, the total of the tax-based local revenues for a given fiscal year
is divided by the yield of one-mill of school district tax, as determined from the most recent
financial statement by the local board of education. This measure of Fiscal Effort or Tax Effort
is presented on the annual Report Cards for each local Board of Education. This is shown
below in Figure 5-1:
Figure 5-1
Calculating Equivalent Mills
Equivalent Mills =
Yield of 1.0 Mill of School District Tax
As was demonstrated earlier in Table 4-3 taken from the FY 2008-09 Alabama State
Department of Education Report Card for Jefferson County, 32.58 equivalent mills are
shown as revenues from local tax-based sources earning a statewide grade of “C+.” This
calculated value is somewhat diminished by the amount of capital outlay funds being used in
Jefferson County to replace substandard classrooms and portable classrooms. The Alabama
State Department of Education does not consider local taxes restricted for capital outlay
purposes when annually calculating local tax effort in terms of equivalent mills.
When considering the local tax-based revenues available to the proposed Gardendale
City School System, the following calculation of equivalent mills can be made in the following
Table 5-34 based upon FY 2012-13 budgeted data from the State Department of Education
which is presented in Appendices 7-11 and 7-12. It is demonstrated that from tax-based
revenues only, the proposed Gardendale City School System would have 31.11 equivalent
mills for FY 2012-13, somewhat less than Jefferson County for FY 2012-13 at 32.95 equivalent
mills. Both amounts are just at the state average of 32.28.
111
Table 5-34
Calculation of Estimated Equivalent Mills for FY 2012-13 for the
Jefferson County School System and Proposed Gardendale City School System
School System
Jefferson County School System
Local TaxBased
Revenues
$ 82,385,739
Proposed Gardendale City School System $
6,009,567
Residual Jefferson County School System $
76,376,172
Number
Equivalent
Mills
25,000,580 $2,500,058
32.95
Chargeback
Yield Per
Mill
$1,931,940
$193,194
31.11
$ 23,068,640 $2,306,864
33.11
A funding paradox is manifest in these data. Since the proposed Gardendale City
School System receives countywide tax allocations fundamentally on a per student basis, the
relatively small student resident population in ADM means a relatively small share of countywide
taxes. Increasing student population would mean more countywide tax revenues being shared
in the numerator, and since the tax yield of the school tax district remains constant, the number
of equivalent mills would increase.
Total Revenues Per Student
Another way of measuring fiscal effort is the total revenue budgeted divided by the
number of students served. The measure of current expenditures per student does not consider
the total revenues received, does not consider expenditures for capital outlay and debt service,
and does not consider revenues being budgeted as reserve funds. Given these limitations, the
only comparative measure available is Total Revenues Per Student (unknowns will be the
proposed Gardendale City School System budget for capital outlay and debt service, transfers
in from beginning balances, and transfers out). These calculations follow in Table 5-35:
Table 5-35
Estimated Total Revenues Per Student in ADM for FY 2012-13
Total
Revenues
School System
ADM
Revenues
Per ADM
$ 317,185,093
36,058.15 $8,796.49
$
20,841,119
2,214.00
$9,413.33
As is seen, the proposed Gardendale City School System has a slight advantage in total
revenues per student. As presented earlier, this would be due to the state equalization
provisions in state funding, the equalization provisions in countywide funding, and the estimated
federal funding.
112
F. EXISTING DEBT TO BE ASSUMED BY THE
PROPOSED GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR FY 2012-113
Instruments of Debt Authorized by the State of Alabama
Alabama Public School and College Authority (APSCA)
APSCA State Assumption of Debt from State Sales Tax Revenues. Providing for financing
for the construction of school buildings was historically left to local boards of education.
Provision was made by constitutional amendment for additional millages to be voted on by the
local voters which could be used to finance construction. The state in 1959 began the first
program to sell bonds and allocate the proceeds to local boards of education to offset cost of
construction (1959). The modern mechanism, the Alabama Public School and College
Authority, was created in 1965. With a pledge by the state of the proceeds of the state sales tax
for repayment, a continuing program of bonded debt assumption and repayment by the state
began with the last issue in 2007. The Jefferson County Board of Education has participated in
these bond issues.
The proceeds are a gift from the state and require no repayment.
Therefore, no construction debt can be assigned to school sites.
APSCA Pooled Purchase Bond Issues. The State began the Capital Purchase Allocation
in 1995 which allocates annually, with the requirement of a local match, the proceeds from a
statewide 3.0 mill ad valorem tax credited to the Public School Fund. These tax resources have
also been used as a pledge for repaying of statutory Pooled Purchase APSCA Bond Issues to
benefit local boards of education. The Jefferson County School System has participated in
these bond issues. The participation of the Jefferson County School System in all types of
instruments of debt will be found in Table 5-36.
On October 28, 2009, the Jefferson County Board of Education, as part of a pooled bond
issuance with other school systems within the State of Alabama, issued PSCA Capital
Improvement Pool Refunding Bonds, Series 2009-B in anticipation of their Public School Fund
Allocations, which are received from the Alabama Department of Education. The proceeds were
used to refund, on a current basis, the Jefferson County Board of Education’s Series 1999-D
Capital Improvement Pool Bonds. Future revenues in the amount of $23,636,565.26 are
pledged to repay the remaining principal and interest on the bonds as of September 30, 2011
(Examiners of Public Accounts Audit September 30, 2012). Proceeds of the Public School Fund
allocation in the amount of $8,527,119.00 were received by the Jefferson County Board of
Education during the fiscal year ended. Pledged funds in the amount of $2,984,373.87 were
used to pay principal and interest on the bonds during the fiscal year ended September 30,
2011. This represents 35 percent of the pledged funds received by the Jefferson County Board
of Education. The Capital Improvement Pool Bonds, Series 2009-B will mature in fiscal year
2019.
Local School Board Revenue Warrants
And the third major mechanism still in effect is the statutory provision that local boards
can issue revenue warrants (similar to bonds) with repayment pledged from local ad valorem
and sales/use taxes. The Jefferson County Board of Education has issued local revenue
warrants with repayment pledged from ad valorem and sales tax revenues. The following Table
5-37 will summarize the debt of the Jefferson County Board of Education for school building
construction which should be assumed by the proposed Gardendale City School System.
113
Table 5-36
Summary of School Construction Debt
of the Jefferson County School System as of September 30, 2012
Original Amount
$
$
$
45,210,000.00
45,890,172.00
7,555,000.00
Year
Date of
Borrowed Liquidation
2000
2000
2005
2020
2020
2020
Principal Paid
Interest Paid
$ 2,285,354.08
$ 2,039,204.01
$ 485,000.00
$ 1,376,745.00
$ 945,328.62
$ 176,451.25
TOTAL Principal
& Interest
$
$
$
3,662,099.08
2,984,532.63
661,451.25
$ 12,994,834.00
2009
2029
$ 452,667.58 $ 546,712.28 $
999,379.86
$
7,740,000.00
2011
2027
$
$
33,282.00 $
33,282.00
2011
2020
$ 3,957,000.00 $ 1,574,059.50 $ 5,531,059.50
$ 45,367,000.00
$ 164,757,006.00
$ 9,219,225.67 $ 4,652,578.65 $ 13,871,804.32
Jefferson County School System Schedule Annual Financial Statement for FY 2011-2012
Balance
Remaining
9/30/12
$ 23,666,582.45
$ 17,105,500.45
$
4,370,000.00
$ 11,399,305.62
$
7,740,000.00
$ 38,382,000.00
$ 102,663,388.52
Proposed Gardendale City School System Assumption of Debt
A provision of the statute authorizing the formation of local city school systems is
repeated here from Chapter 1 and emphasizes the statutory reference to debt:
§ 16-13-199. Municipality may remain under county board of education; disposition of tax
when city assumes control of schools.
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 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 shall be paid over to the custodian of city school funds, 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 (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-199).
Common practice regarding the assumption of debt by a local warrant issue over time
has been based upon the shaded language in Section 16-39-199. Since historically a district
school tax had been levied and collected to issue debt to finance school construction, the
assumption is that since the district tax of the newly formed city school system would be paid
over to the new city board of education, debt financed by that revenue source would be
transferred to the new city board of education.
Jefferson County School System 2009 B (99D) APSCA Pooled Purchase Bond Issue
In the case of Pooled Purchase Bond Issues issued by the APSCA whose pledge for
repayment is each participating local board of education’s annual apportionment from the 3.0
mill statewide ad valorem tax to the Public School Fund, an entirely different mechanism is in
place. Since the State, which relies on calculations provided by the State Superintendent of
Education and the APSCA, has the legal authority to withhold sufficient amounts of the state
allocation to pay the annual debt service, and since each local board of education earns a state
allocation annually, it is realistic to expect that APSCA Pooled Purchase debt service payments
will be withheld from the newly formed city school system board of education in amounts as
114
calculated to annually make the principal and interest debt service payment. These are funds
from the state and directly under state Control.
The amounts in Table 5-37 which follows represent the reported expenditures (cost of
projects) reported by the Jefferson County Board of Education as being attributed to school
sites in the City of Gardendale. The instrument of debt is the 2009 B (99D) APSCA Pooled
Purchase Bond Issue. The debt assigned to the school sites in the City of Gardendale is for
specific projects which are identified as follows:
Table 5-37
Capital Projects Funded in School Sites of the City of Gardendale
from Jefferson County School System 2009 B (99D) APSCA Pooled Purchase Bond Issue
Item
Balance
Remaining
Initial Debt
$ 48,125,025.00
Total Borrowed
Principal and Interest Remaining
Percent of Original Debt Remaining
Construction Projects in Gardendale
1 Gardendale Elementary Classroom Addition $
2 Bragg Middle School Classroom Addition
3 Bragg Middle School Paving
$
4 Snow Rogers Classroom Addition
$
$
$ 20,230,348.32
42.0200%
1,360,199.26 $
571,555.73
25,638.74 $
968,591.31 $
2,354,429.31 $
10,773.40
407,002.07
989,331.20
Gardendale Percent of Total Debt
4.89%
Gardendale Share of Remaining P&I
$
Source: Ms. Sheila Jones, Jefferson County School System, 2/27/2013
989,264.03
There were no capital projects funded through this debt at the Mount Olive Elementary School.
An amortization schedule of principal and interest payments from this debt can be found in
Appendix 7-35.
Jefferson County Limited Obligation School Series 2000 Warrants
The Jefferson County Commission issued Limited Obligation School Warrants, Series
2000 in order to finance the costs of acquiring certain public school facilities (the “Leased
Property”) of the Jefferson County Board of Education (the “Board”), for lease back to the
Board. The Warrants were issued pursuant to that certain Mortgage and Trust Indenture (the
"Indenture") dated as of July 1, 2000, between Jefferson County, Alabama (the "County") and
U.S. Bank National Association (as successor trustee to SouthTrust Bank) (the "Trustee").
The funds were used to retire the Board’s current revenue anticipation warrant dated
May 3, 2000. The Board simultaneously executed a capital lease agreement for the
aforementioned property and pledged tax proceeds for the lease payments which will
approximate debt service requirements under the Jefferson County Commission’s Limited
Obligation School Warrants, Series 2000. The warrants do not constitute a debt or pledge of the
faith and credit of the Jefferson County Commission, and accordingly have not been reported in
the accompanying financial statements for the Jefferson County Commission. Upon repayment
of the warrants, ownership of the leased property will return to the Board. As of September 30,
2000, the principal amount outstanding was $45,210,000.00, the original amount of the issue.
115
A portion of this debt was used to retire a revenue anticipation warrant and the balance
was used for operation of the Jefferson County School System. The amount for this purpose of
operations was considered to be a debt against each school site and proportioned based upon
an equal amount per student in ADM. This is a very unusual debt to be incurred, but correctly it
is a debt of the current being retired by the lease payments from the Jefferson County School
System which will redeem the school sites which were in essence "sold" to the Jefferson County
Commission. For this reason, this debt may be assumed by the proposed Gardendale City
School System. A summary of the debt allocation is found in Table 5-38 which follows.
Table 5-38
Capital Projects Funded in School Sites of the City of Gardendale
from Jefferson County Commission Limited Obligation School Series 2000 Warrants
School Site
Jefferson County School System Total
1
2
Snow Rogers Elementary
Bragg Middle School
3
4
Mount Olive Elementary
5
Gardendale Share of ADM
Percent
ADM 2011-12
36,058.15
899.25
182.75
890.25
1,065.75
406.50
3,444.50
$ 45,210,000.00
Total Borrowed
$ (21,994,540.00)
Set Aside
$ 23,215,460.00
Balance to Distribute
$ 15,189,220.88
Principal Remaining for Jefferson County
Principal to be Assumed by Gardendale
Debt Assigned to School Site
1
2
Bragg Middle School
3
4
5
Total Debt Assigned
Source: Ms. Sheila Jones, Jefferson County School System, 2/27/2013
2.49%
0.51%
2.47%
2.96%
1.13%
9.55%
1,450,570.59
$
$
$
$
$
$
378,698.10
76,960.89
374,907.96
448,815.68
171,187.97
1,450,570.59
Please note that the Mount Olive Elementary School is included in this calculation. An
amortization schedule of principal and interest payments from this debt can be found in
Appendix 7-36.
Jefferson County School Construction Warrant Issues of 2004 and 2005
As was presented earlier, the Jefferson County Commission sold limited obligation
school warrants beginning in 2004 in three issues, the 2004-A Fixed Rate Series in the amount
of $650,000,000 million, the 2005-A Auction Rate Series in the amount of $105,000,000, and
the 2005-B Variable Rate Demand Series in the amount of $295,000,000. Interest rates of the
2004-A Series range from a high of 5.5% to a low of 4.75%. The 2005-A interest rates are fixed
at 4.88% for each payment. The 2005-B interest rates are fixed at 6.25%. Prior to the July 1,
2012, payment, a total debt service balance was $1,165,673,982.50. An amortization schedule
of principal and interest payments from this debt can be found in Appendix 7-37.
The cost of construction of the Gardendale High School was paid for by the proceeds
allocated for determination of needed construction by the Jefferson County Commission on
behalf of the Jefferson County Board of Education. This is not an education debt as described
in the statute pertaining to assumption of debt by a newly formed city school system. Rather it
116
is a debt of the Jefferson County Commission for whom debt is serviced by the pledged one
cent sales/use tax levy.
Summary of Debt to be Assumed
The debt to be assumed by the proposed Gardendale City School System is extremely
small. If fact, the annual debt service in the range of $$370,000 is actually smaller than the sum
of the annual estimated 1995 Capital Purchase Allocation from the state. As previously
presented, this state allocation is estimated to be $485,458 and the local match estimated to be
$201,202 for a total of $686,660. The debt to be assumed is only just greater than ½ of the
state mandated restricted revenues for capital outlay. Therefore the debt service estimated for
the proposed Gardendale City School System must be least equal to this total state and local
allocation. Table 39 which follows compares the debt load of the Jefferson County School
System and the proposed Gardendale City School System:
Table 5-39
Estimated Debt Load per ADM for FY 2012-13
SCHOOL SYSTEM
PSF State
Local Match
Other Local Funds
Total Debt Service*
Debt Service
$
$
$
8,612,436
2,595,013
2,664,355
$ 13,871,804
ADM
36,058.15
36,058.15
36,058.15
36,058.15
Debt Per
ADM
$
$
$
238.85
71.97
73.89
$
384.71
Gardendale
PSF State
$
485,458
2,214.00 $ 219.27
90.88
$
201,202
2,214.00 $
Local Match
Total Debt Service
$
686,660
2,214.00 $ 310.14
*Amount is for FY 2011-12 as presented in the Jefferson County School System
Financial Statement.
From these estimates on a per ADM basis, the proposed Gardendale City Board of
Education would have a debt load about $74.56 less than that estimated for the Jefferson
County School System. While this is a very attractive proposition, submerged in the data is the
realization that the probable actual student enrollment should financial separation occur will
most likely be greater. In addition, there are identified renovation needs, particularly at the
Snow Rogers Elementary School, which will require capital outlay. And based upon student
growth over time, new classrooms and/or an entire new school site may be necessary.
Additional capacity to service debt must be considered should separation occur.
117
G. FINANCING THE STUDENT TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM BY THE
PROPOSED GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR FY 2012-13
In the final agreement of separation, the proposed Gardendale City School System will
assume control of the student transportation equipment providing transportation services to the
school sites of Gardendale. An allowance has been included in the state revenue section of this
study to account for estimated allocations. The estimated allocations are based upon an
enumeration of student buses found in Appendix 7-34. As previously discussed, local school
systems receive two allocations from the state to fund the student transportation system. The
first is Fleet Renewal, and the second is Current Operations. This was presented in Chapter 3.
A city school system has the option of not operating a student transportation program.
However, a decision not to operate does not remove the necessity to provide transportation for
class activities, athletics, and students with disabilities.
Fleet Renewal
Assuming that the proposed Gardendale City School System would choose to operate a
student transportation program and based upon the inventory of school buses serving the
school sites of Gardendale, an estimate of $122,947 has been included in the estimate of state
revenues. This is based on 22 chassis which are not older than ten years earning the FY 201213 allocation of $5,588.48. The premise of the 10 year life span of buses is full escrow of the
cost of purchasing a new bus based upon 10 years of payments. Buses can be operated longer
than 10 years, but will not be eligible for the state fleet renewal allocation. However, caution
may be taken to understand that while the State Department of Education annually requests a
Fleet Renewal allocation sufficient for this purpose, years of proration and budget reductions
has resulted in insufficient allocations. In fact, when the Legislature needs funds for other items
of the annual education appropriations bill, cutting transportation is many times the source of
funds. Given the historical shortfall, a local board of education should plan to budget at least
25% if not more of the costs of new school buses. Fortunately, there is not debt on any of the
buses, including those which serve the Mount Olive Elementary School.
Current Operations
The second factor of the transportation allowance is for current operations. Previous
practice had been to request 100% reimbursement for prior year operations with specific regard
to efficiency of operations. The process is being modified over several years by the State
Department of Education to make an estimate of "reasonable" costs for reimbursement – not all
costs. In addition, significant budget cuts and proration have further reduced the operations
allowance to local boards of education. In addition to the state operations allowance, there are
site-based fees for non-route transportation (field trips, sports, etc.) that will be received from
local sources. With significant uncertainty as to the number of school sites, number of
transported students, and municipal boundaries that would be in effect at final separation, the
best estimate of the state allocation for Current Operations to the proposed Gardendale City
School System is one based on other school systems with comparable ADM. Therefore, the
amount of $880,476 has been included in the estimate of state revenues.
Given the current ETF fiscal situation recovering from the Great Recession, the
appropriation caps in the Rolling Reserve Act, and new programmatic demands for funding, it is
difficult to foresee a complete accounting for reasonable cost in the near future by the State.
What is underfunded today may well be underfunded tomorrow. Therefore, for budget planning
purposes, it would be prudent to plan on a 25% cost over and above state operating cost
118
reimbursement for operations. This would amount to about $220,000 from the proposed
Gardendale City School System from local funds to underwrite the student transportation
program. However, cost efficiencies could be investigated including out sourcing the entire
student transportation program to just outsourcing the maintenance and repair of buses. Also
there is the option of lease purchase of new buses.
119
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A. PROPOSED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
The financial feasibility of the proposed Gardendale City School System is a function
both of startup costs and of continuing revenues and expenditures. The issue of continuing
revenues and expenditures will be discussed first.
Continuing Revenues and Expenditures
Usual methodology of evaluating the adequacy of continuing local tax-based revenues to
support a public school system in Alabama would consider the net local tax-based revenues
after deducting the mandated match for the 1995 Foundation Program and the 1995 Capital
Purchase Program defined as unrestricted local revenues. Simply stated, the final question is
whether local tax-based revenues available to the control of the local board of education are
sufficient to meet necessary costs of operation. A review of each category of expenditure by
function follows.
Components of Expenditures by Function
I. General Administrative Services are those activities concerned with establishing
and administering policy for operating the school system.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Board of Education Services
Executive Administrative Services
Business Support Services
System-Wide Support Services
Central Office Services
These services are funded through the General Fund. Normally sound fiscal policy
dictates that a well-managed school system will maintain these expenditures by function to less
than four percent of the total budget, and most desirably between 2.5% and 3.0%. Given the
diseconomy of scale of the proposed Gardendale City School System, some additional local
tax-based resources may well be necessary. It is recommended that an additional $200,000 be
provided for this service.
II. Operation and Maintenance Services are those activities concerned with keeping
the physical plant open, comfortable and safe for use and keeping the grounds, buildings and
major equipment in effective working condition and good state of repair. These include the
activities of maintaining safety in buildings, on the grounds and in the vicinity of schools.
Included in this function are security services, janitorial services, utility services and
maintenance services. Components include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Security Services
Building Services
Grounds Services
Equipment Services
Vehicle Services
120
A portion, if not all, of these costs may be paid for from the Other Current Expense
Allocation in the 1995 Foundation Program. However, this item of appropriation has been cut
by the Legislature in the past few years. Given the diseconomy of scale of a small size city
school system, existing revenues may be insufficient funding for this function of expenditure,
especially in light of deferred maintenance and renovation needs at existing school sites. A
partial offset of costs may be provided through the action of the City Council of a city school
system to provide on-behalf services through existing city employees. Such has been provided
as illustrated in Chapter 5 by the City of Gardendale. The availability of continuing such onbehalf services should be considered. Another option is out-sourcing.
A newly formed school system may be required to make moderate upgrades in school
sites in accordance with taxpayer expectations. The facility analysis reported in Chapter 2 did
delineate some areas needing attention.
It is recommended that, upon a resolution for
separation, a new revenue source be identified to escrow funds for any needed improvements
at separation. This could be a one-time expenditure from a beginning balance made available
by the Gardendale City Council to the City Board of Education if separation is accomplished.
III.
Capital Outlay contains those activities concerned with acquiring land and
buildings, land and building improvements, building additions and construction, and architecture
and engineering services. Components include the following:
1. Site Acquisition and Improvements
2. Building Acquisition and Improvements
An advantage for the proposed Gardendale City School System is sufficient school sites
and buildings to accommodate immediate projected student enrollment even though there are
capital outlay needs for the near and long-term future operation. In addition, there are few
required upgrades noted. A disadvantage for the proposed Gardendale City School System, as
well as for the Jefferson County School System, is the significant past, present, and predicted
growth in student enrollment which will require additional classroom space. The demographics
of Jefferson County and the City of Gardendale were detailed in Chapter 2.
The assessment by the State Department of Education regarding condition and needed
improvements is documented in Appendices 7-17 through 7-26. The future capital needs of
the proposed Gardendale City School System will be a function both of annexation of additional
unincorporated areas and perhaps enhanced population growth spurred by the quality of a
separate city school system. If a new school site were in future planning, or an expansion of
existing sites with new classroom space equivalent to a new school site, a fiscally sound
mechanism to plan for this growth would be the ability to fund a $20,000,000 capital
expenditure. Based upon 20 year instrument of debt at 3.0% projected interest rate, this would
require an additional $1,300,000 per year of principal and interest.
IV. Debt Service includes those activities involved in servicing the long term debt(s) of
the school system. These include payments of principal and interest on bond and warrant
obligations, payments of principal and interest on lease-purchase agreements and payments of
other related debt service charges incurred such as handling charges from lending institutions.
These activities include the following:
1. Bonds and Warrants
2. Notes
3. Lease Purchase Agreements
121
State law requires that a newly formed city school system acquire title to all property
associated with the school sites within the city, the equipment of those sites and the
transportation equipment transporting students to those sites. Furthermore, the new city 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 city 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 local 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 the annual
Capital Purchase Allocation from the state is used to purchase a portion of a larger bond 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 provided for pupils in a school classroom, in
another location such as a home or hospital and in other learning situations such as those
involving co-curricular 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, computers and other areas of technology. This function should include the purchase
of instructional furniture and equipment, and the repairs and maintenance for this equipment.
Also included here are the activities of classroom assistants of any type and substitute teachers
who directly assist in the instructional process. These activities are for the most part the
salaries and benefits 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 services costs
in existing schools located within the City of Gardendale are funded through the 1995
Foundation Program and other state aid programs such as line 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. In addition, additional funding for the
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 FY 2012-13
cost of a teacher unit. These additional personnel are not required by any state regulation or by
122
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accreditation, but would be an enhanced
educational opportunity.
VI. Instructional Support Services are to facilitate and enhance instruction. Such
services will include student support, instructional staff support, educational media and local
school administration. These include the following:
1. Student Support Services
Attendance Services
Guidance & Counseling Services
Testing Services
Health Services
Social Services
Work Study Services
Psychological Services
Speech Pathology & Audiology Services
Other Student Support Services
2. Instructional Staff Support Services
Instructional Improvement & Curriculum Development Services
Instructional Staff Development Services
Educational Media Services
Other Instructional Staff Services
3. School Administrative Services
Office of School Administrator
School Principal/Assistant Principal Services
Operation of Office of School Administrator
Other School Administrative Services
For the most part, the 1995 Foundation Program will provide funding for a principal for
each school site, and based upon SACS staffing recommendations, assistant principals,
guidance counselors, and librarians. Some of the student support services could be outsourced as a cost-saving measure. No additional funding is recommended for this function of
expenditure. However, some additional administrative personnel are funded by local Jefferson
County revenues and could be continued with estimated state and local revenues.
VII. Auxiliary Services are those activities or services functioning in a subsidiary
capacity and lending assistance to the educational process. Included in this function are (1)
food service operations (the Child Nutrition Program) and (2) student transportation services. In
Alabama, these two programs define Auxiliary Services.
1. The Child Nutrition Program in Alabama is funded in large part by federal programs
and fees paid for lunches. In addition, the Legislature has mandated annually that pay raises
and increases in fringe benefits for school lunchroom workers be included in the 1995
Foundation Program in the cost factor of Other Current Expense Allowance. This is
accomplished annually by a transfer from the General Fund to the Child Nutrition Program. At
least one school system in Alabama out-sources the operations of the school lunchroom
program. Mandated transfers from the General Fund to the Child Nutrition Program were
relaxed for FY 2012-13. Over time, no such transfers may be required for the proposed
123
2. The School Transportation Program in Alabama has been assumed to be a fully
state-funded program. City school systems are not required to operate a school transportation
program, but may so choose and thus receive state reimbursement. The 1995 Foundation
Program removed transportation as a cost factor from the 1935 Foundation Program and
established it as a fully state-funded categorical aid program. An allowance is made to each local
board of education operating a school transportation system based upon the product of the number
of students transported on approved routes and an amount per pupil transported. In addition, a
deprecation allowance was funded.
Current Operations. In determining the cost of current operations, transported students must live
two miles or more from a school center. However, physically disabled students who live closer
shall be included in the determination of average daily transported students. The State
Superintendent must approve the school centers. If safety of children is an issue, the State
Superintendent may waive the two-mile limit. This pupil count shall be for the previous year. The
cost per pupil per day is the operating cost of current expenditures. All transportation of special
education students is fully reimbursed by including their full costs in the calculations. As discussed
earlier, the adequacy of this reimbursement is under intense state financial pressure to be reduced.
Therefore it is recommended that a new revenue source amounting to $220,000 be provided to
subsidize an estimated 25% of the operating cost from local revenues. Outsourcing of the student
transportation program is an option the proposed Gardendale City Board of Education could
consider.
Fleet Renewal. Based upon the age of each school bus in operation, an amount for depreciation
is included in the operating cost. This amount, based on a chassis life of 10 years, is set aside as
a fleet renewal allocation to be expended only for the purchase of new school buses. These funds
may be carried over to future years.
This categorical aid program does not require a local match of funds directly. To the extent
that the state allocation does not provide 100% reimbursement of allowable costs, there is an
operating cost deficit that must be provided from local resources. To the extent that a local school
system operates a transportation program in excess (miles to approved school sites, inefficient
routes, etc.) of the state approved program, the local school system must provide the excess
operations costs from local sources. To the extent the escrowed amount for fleet renewal from the
state transportation program is insufficient to cover the replacement costs of bus by chassis which
exceed 10 years of age, the local school system must provide for the excess purchase costs from
pay-as-you-go local revenues and/or assumption of local debt. There is no debt on the buses
serving the school sites of the City of Gardendale. A thorough review of the age of transportation
equipment and anticipated state funds should be made in anticipation of financial operations
beginning.
B. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING REVENUES AVAILABLE
Local tax-based revenues estimated for the proposed Gardendale City School System
should be adequate to meet estimated expenditure obligations for current operations and to
meet expenditure obligations for capital outlay and debt service.
Once the mandated state
matches are made for the 1995 Foundation Program and the 1995 Capital Purchase
Program, and in addition for the state-mandated function of General Administrative Services
(the Central Office), net unrestricted revenues are determined. However, in order to provide a
sound financial base for the proposed Gardendale City School System, the following Table 6-1
124
outlines the additional revenues to be provided that will enhance the educational opportunities
provided students:
Table 6-1
Recommended Additional Annual Expenditures from Local Current Revenues
Category of Additional New Expenditures
Transportation Operations*
Allowance for Potential New Consruction
Eight Additional Teacher Units
TOTAL
*A student transportation program is optional.
Annual Amount
$
200,000
$
220,000
$
1,300,000
$
642,000
$
2,362,000
As presented earlier, only once the proposed Gardendale City Board of Education is formed and
in financial operation will decisions regarding numbers of students, personnel and staffing
considerations, potential outsourcing, and repair, renovation, and new construction actually be
known.
There are significant transition costs. While the academic year begins July 1, the state
fiscal year does not begin until October 1 and state allocations made before the end of October.
It is recommended that additional local tax-based revenues in the range of $1,000,000 to
$2,000,000 annually be provided as soon as steps are begun for separate status by City
Council Resolution. In additional to current operating dollars, the beginning of operations will
encounter unexpected and unbudgeted expenditures as well as the need to show plans to meet
the state requirement of a one month's operating reserve.
C. REVENUE OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
Creating a separate city school system for the City of Gardendale does not present a
difficult financial circumstance due to the tax base, the projected cost-efficient size in ADM
(economy of scale), the needs of the physical plant, and the potential needs for instructional
improvement; however, certain cost containment and revenue options should be considered.
Primary among these is the need for a reserve account to be established concurrent with any
City Council action creating the Gardendale City School System. While the projected revenue
stream may appear to be minimally adequate for operating the current instructional program
provided, funds for start-up costs must be considered as well as roll-over costs (maintaining the
current instructional program) and costs for instructional improvement.
Maintaining all current school sites with building principals and creating the new
positions of superintendent (position is required by state law) and of chief school finance officer
(position is required by state law) should be accomplished prior to financial separation. Some
costs at separation may be encountered due to restructuring of grade levels of existing school
sites.
The position of superintendent should be filled as soon as possible. A commensurate
salary would be negotiated in a contract for this position. While the position would oversee four
attendance centers, adjusting the existing staff to the roll-over instructional load would be a
significant task. Other state required positions such as a technology coordinator and school
125
nurses(s) must be addressed. Others such as the required attendance officer may be a joint
position with a principal or actually the superintendent.
Upon acceptance of Revenue Options which follow or some different Options as
circumstances may dictate, a key financial consideration will be the accommodation of current
site employees:
Section 16-24C-4: Tenure of teachers; nonprobationary status of classified employees.
e. Neither tenured status nor time in probationary service shall be transferable from one
employer subject to this chapter to another such employer, except that employees whose employer
changes by virtue of annexation, school district formation, consolidation, or a similar reorganization
over which the employee has no control shall retain tenure or nonprobationary status and service
credit attained by virtue of employment with the predecessor employer (Code of Alabama 1975,
Section 16-24C-4).
This provision of law is found in the recently approved Students First Act of 2011 as
contained in Act 2011-270, p. 494. The purpose of this legislation was to allow local boards of
education more flexibility in dealing with the employment status of personnel. It must be noted
that while the Section 14-24C-4 quoted above declares that the change in employer status
which occurs because of the formation of a new city school system cannot remove the
employment status of tenure, simplified provisions for non-continuance of a tenured teacher is
possible due to deceased need for services:
Section 16-24C-6:
appeals.
Termination of employment - Grounds for termination; procedures;
(a) Tenured teachers and nonprobationary classified employees may be terminated at any
time because of a justifiable decrease in the number of positions or for incompetency,
insubordination, neglect of duty, immorality, failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner, or
other good and just cause, subject to the rights and procedures hereinafter provided. However, a
vote or decision to approve a recommended termination on the part of a president of a two-year
educational institution operated under the authority and control of the Department of Postsecondary
Education or the governing board shall not be made for political or personal reasons (Code of
Alabama 1975, Section 16-24C-6).
In planning for separation and/or school closings, provision must be made to protect
continuing employment status of personnel assigned to and working at these building sites.
However, some employees may wish to transfer to the Jefferson County School System at the
offer of employment by the Jefferson County School System in the negotiations for the
conditions of fiscal separation. Such a practice is common in the formation of new city school
systems. In addition, some certificated and non-certificated personnel will be lost due to
retirement, relocation, or other reasons.
D. OPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES
Options for additional local revenues do exist. The Gardendale City Council could
impose the following taxes without the need for a referendum. These are not included as
recommendations, but are noted as possibilities for additional revenues.
126
(1)
A 1.0% sales and use tax increase is not feasible given the current existing rate of
10% in the City of Gardendale. However, if proceeds of an existing 1.0% sales tax
were to become available, the estimated yield could be --------------------- $2,610,411
(2)
A 5.0 mill municipal ad valorem tax to be levied and collected under authority
conferred in Section 216 of the Constitution of 1901 by resolution of the
Gardendale City Council, could yield --------------------------------------------- $1,000,000
(3)
A municipal occupations license tax can be levied and collected. The principal
statutory grant of authority for Alabama cities and towns to tax businesses or
trades, occupations or professions is found in Section 11-51-90, Code of Alabama,
1975.
(4)
The City Council, depending on the constitutional authority currently exhausted by
the levy and collection of 10.0 mills, has the authority to request a referendum on
an additional 7.5 mills of city ad valorem tax with action of the Legislature under the
provisions of Amendment 56.
Each municipal corporation in this state whose annual ad valorem tax rate is
otherwise limited by the Constitution or any amendment thereto less than one and
one-fourth per centum (1 1/4 %) of the value of the property situated therein as
assessed for state taxation during the preceding year shall have, in addition to the
power to levy and collect such ad valorem tax each year at the rate authorized
immediately prior to the adoption of this amendment, the further power to levy and
collect each year an additional tax or taxes to such extent that the total ad valorem
tax rate of such municipal corporation shall not exceed one and one-fourth per
centum (1 1/4 %) in any one year on the property situated therein based on the
valuation of such property as assessed for state taxation during the preceding year;
provided, that before any such additional tax may be so levied and collected a
majority of the qualified electors of any such municipal corporation voting at an
election called for that purpose shall vote in favor of the levy thereof; provided
further, that the total ad valorem tax or taxes to be levied and collected by any such
municipal corporation shall not exceed one and one-fourth per centum (1 1/4 %) in
any one year; and provided further, that the adoption of this amendment shall in no
wise affect, limit, modify, abridge or impair the power, authority or right of any such
municipal corporation to levy and collect the special school taxes now or hereafter
vested or conferred upon them, or any of them, under the Constitution or any
amendment thereto, which said special school taxes shall be in excess of said one
and one-fourth per centum (1 1/4 %) herein provided for. Each election held under
the provisions hereof shall be ordered, held, canvassed and may be contested in the
same manner as is or may be provided by the law applicable to municipal
corporations for elections to authorize the issuance of municipal bonds. The ballots
used at such elections shall specify the purpose for which the proposed additional
rate of taxation shall be authorized and shall contain the words "For ... % additional
rate of taxation"; and "Against ... % additional rate of taxation"; the additional rate of
taxation proposed to be shown in the blank space provided therefor. The voter shall
record his choice, whether for or against the additional rate shown, by placing a
cross mark before or after the words expressing his choice. The proceeds of any
such additional tax so authorized at any such election shall be used only for the
purpose for which the same shall be authorized at such election. Elections to
authorize the levy of such additional tax may be held as often as ordered by the
governing body of the municipality, but when a proposition is submitted to the
electors to levy such additional tax for a specific purpose and such proposition is
defeated then no second election for the same purpose shall be held in one year
thereafter (Constitution of 1901, Amendment 56).
127
(5) A municipality is empowered to levy and collect at any rate any excise, franchise,
and privilege license taxes under the authority granted by (Code of Alabama 1975,
Section 11-51-200).
E. FORWARD FUNDING OF PROPOSED
GARDENDALE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
It is recommended that if creation of a separate city school system for Gardendale is
undertaken, the City Council should provide for funding for the new Board and administration at
the same time approval of a City Council resolution for separation is accomplished. Such
funding would also assist in creating a reserve fund to be available for cash flow of the new city
school system. While the state scholastic year begins July 1 along with contracts of many
school system employees, the state fiscal year for the allocation of state revenues begins
October 1 with actual receipts from the state due and payable at the end of October. These
revenues could be from city tax sources which are immediately available to the City Council for
action. School ad valorem taxes would be collected after the final separation agreement is
made. Any new ad valorem tax would provide revenues only at least one year after approval.
Legal assistance is highly desirable in these issues of planning for a smooth transition of
federal, state, and local revenues. It is recommended that at least a superintendent and a chief
fiscal officer be employed by the newly appointed Gardendale City Board of Education as soon
as possible to oversee and implement the transition to a new city system. Also a board attorney
needs to be identified and involved. It is highly recommended that the position of chief school
fiscal officer be filled due to the uniqueness and complexity of public school finance and the time
that will be required. Immediate participation in financial training and professional development
will be essential.
Additional Revenue Options Dependent upon Referendum
In addition to the revenue options for the City Council previously presented, the following
additional revenue options should be noted:
(1)
Amendment 373, the “Lid Bill,” provides for the rate of an existing millage to be
increased in a referendum, contingent upon certain steps being implemented. If an
existing city millage were increased, the collection of the levy would be in the next
collection cycle. If an existing school tax millage were to be increased, the collection of
the levy could not occur until after final separation. Such a tax would be approved for
levy and collection by the following steps:
(a)
Public Hearing. The local taxing authority (in the case of most, but not all school
taxes, this is the county commission) conducts a public hearing on the proposed
tax increase (usually at the request of the school board) at which the local taxing
authority formally votes to propose the increase;
(b) Local Legislation. The Legislature approves the proposed increase through the
passage of a local act; and
(c)
Local Referendum. Voters approve the proposed increase in a local election.
The issue is not voted upon statewide or countywide.
128
(2)
Ad valorem taxes cannot be levied and collected without specific constitutional authority
(and in most cases only by referendum). Another method for an ad valorem tax increase
is a local application constitutional amendment affecting only the City of Gardendale, but
which must be voted upon statewide.
Gardendale City School System Share
of Jefferson County School System Fund Balances
The capital outlay and debt load to be assumed by the proposed Gardendale City
School System could be at least partially offset by the following considerations.
(1)
At final implementation of separation, the Gardendale City School System should be
entitled to its share of escrowed Capital Purchase Allocation from the Public School
Fund in escrow by the Jefferson County Board of Education. Gardendale should be
entitled to at least 6.449425% of this amount (a prorata share) as resident students of
Gardendale earned this allocation, and the residents of Gardendale paid the 3.0 mill
statewide ad valorem tax which funds it.
(2)
entitled to its prorata share of any fund balance in the General Fund of the Jefferson
County Public School System for the same reasons as above.
(3)
entitled to its prorata share of any escrowed fund balance of revenue warrants and or
bond issues by the Jefferson County Board of Education.
(4)
At initial implementation of separation, the Gardendale City School System should be
entitled to full documentation detailing ownership of all county school property.
(5)
At final implementation of separation, the Gardendale City School System will be entitled
to receive all fund balances in school internal accounts.
(6)
At final implementation of separation, all school site supplies, equipment, transportation
equipment, educational materials and resources, and similar items used in the school
sites in Gardendale shall be transferred to the Gardendale City School System.
Legal Counsel
Should the Gardendale City Council vote to form an independent city school system, it is
recommended that legal counsel familiar with such matters be retained as soon as possible to
coordinate all steps necessary for implementation. Chief among these steps will be to file for
Pre-clearance with the Justice Department under the provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Legal counsel will represent the newly formed Gardendale Board of Education in the negotiation
with the Jefferson County Board on matters of property transfer, personnel matters, fund
balance transfer, and other related issues. Many decisions will have to be made by the
Gardendale City Board of Education upon final separation, including attendance issues. Advice
of legal counsel is crucial. Specific diligence and representation will be required for the creation
of the Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio for the allocation of the Gardendale City
School System’s share of countywide revenues. Immediate contact with the Alabama State
Department of Education should be made and their involvement in financial planning solicited.
129
Similar concern would be necessary for the creation a proxy amount for a chargeback to be
assigned to the Foundation Program and for a Capital Purchase allocation match.
In addition, given that state funding is based upon prior year student attendance data by
school site, it is imperative to plan with both the Alabama State Department of Education and
the local legislative delegation to provide for direct allocation to the proposed Gardendale City
Board of Education beginning with the first year of financial separation. While the state fiscal
year begins October 1, the school academic year begins July 1. Provisions must be made for
bridging this financial hiatus by intergovernmental transfer of funds and should be thoroughly
delineated in the final agreement of separation.
130
7.
APPENDICES
Page
Number
Title
7-1
Per Capita Income and Rank by County in Alabama in 2010 Current Dollars ........ 133
7-2
and Also by Places in Alabama with City School Systems in Alabama, 2009......... 134
7-3
Act of the Legislature No. 203, Approved February 7, 1891 ................................... 135
7-4
Section 269, Constitution of 1901 as Amended ..................................................... 138
7-5
Amendment 3, Constitution of 1901 as Amended: Statewide Application
3.0 Mill Countywide and 3.0 Mill School Tax District Ad Valorem Tax .................... 139
7-6
Amendment 82, Constitution of 1901 as Amended: Jefferson County
Consolidation School Tax Amendment .................................................................. 140
7-7
Amendment 175, Constitution of 1901 as Amended: Special District
Tax for Furtherance of Education in Jefferson County ........................................... 141
7-8
Amendment 382, Constitution of 1901 as Amended: Statewide 3.0 Mill School
Tax District Ad Valorem Tax ..................................................................................142
7-9
Calculation of Yield per Mill per ADM for County School Systems
for FY 2012-13 .....................................................................................................143
7-10
Calculation of Yield per Mill per ADM for City School Systems
for FY 2012-13 .....................................................................................................144
7-11
Tax Capacity and Tax Effort for County School Systems
for FY 2012-13......................................................................................................145
7-12
Tax Capacity and Tax Effort for City School Systems
for FY 2010-13......................................................................................................146
7-13
Capital Purchase Allocation from the Public School Fund for
County School Systems for FY 2012-13 ................................................................ 147
7-14
Capital Purchase Allocation from the Public School Fund for
City School Systems for FY 2012-13 ..................................................................... 148
7-15
Unrestricted Local Tax Revenues per ADM for County School Systems
for FY 2012-13.......................................................................................................149
7-16
Unrestricted Local Tax Revenues per ADM for City School Systems
for FY 2012-13.......................................................................................................150
131
7-17
Gardendale Elementary School Site Summary Report .......................................... 151
7-18
Gardendale Elementary School Site Building Detail Facilities Summary ................ 152
7-19
Snow Rogers Elementary School Site Summary ................................................... 157
7-20
Snow Rogers Elementary School Site Building Detail Facilities Summary ............. 158
7-21
Bragg Middle School Site Summary ...................................................................... 161
7-22
Bragg Middle School Site Building Detail Facilities Summary ................................ 162
7-23
Gardendale High School Site Summary................................................................. 164
7-24
Gardendale High School Building Detail Facilities Summary ................................. 165
7-25
Mount Olive Elementary School Site Summary...................................................... 168
7-26
Mount Olive Elementary School Site Building Detail Facilities Summary ............... 169
7-27
Gardendale Elementary School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for
FY 2012-13 Budget...............................................................................................171
7-28
Snow Rogers Elementary School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for
FY 2012-13 Budget...............................................................................................172
7-29
Bragg Middle School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for FY 2012-13 Budget ................ 173
7-30
Gardendale High School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for
FY 2012-13 Budget ...............................................................................................174
7-31
Mount Olive Elementary School Attachment to Exhibit P-II for
FY 2012-13 Budget ..............................................................................................175
7-32
Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio for the School Systems of
Jefferson County for FY 2012-13 ........................................................................... 176
7-33
Letter from Dr. Wayne Teague, State Superintendent of Education,
Regarding Formation of a City School System....................................................... 177
7-34
Student Transportation Equipment Serving the School Sites of Gardendale .......... 180
7-35
Jefferson County School System APSCA Pooled Purchase Bond Issue 1999-D
Refunded in 2009-B Debt to be Assumed by Proposed Gardendale City School
System ..................................................................................................................181
7-36
Jefferson County Limited Obligation School Series 2000 Warrant Issue Debt
to be Assumed by Proposed Gardendale City School System ............................... 182
7-37
Jefferson County 2004 and 2005 Combined Debt Service Series 2004A,
Series 2005A and 2005B School Warrants ........................................................... 183
132
Appendix 7-1
Per Capita Income and Rank by County in Alabama in 2010 Current Dollars
Per Capita Personal Income Estimates for Alabama Counties 2010
Area
Estimate for 2010
$39,937
$33,504
Rank
n/a
n/a
Percent of 2010
US Average
100%
84%
United States
Alabama
Counties:
23
$30,740
Autauga
77%
6
$35,328
Baldwin
88%
52
$26,774
Barbour
67%
66
$22,937
Bibb
57%
$26,103
56
Blount
65%
67
$22,817
Bullock
57%
$28,446
40
Butler
71%
24
$30,680
Calhoun
77%
Chambers
$27,504
45
69%
$26,462
54
Cherokee
66%
Chilton
$27,339
47
68%
$29,622
33
Choctaw
74%
$30,874
20
Clarke
77%
$27,304
48
Clay
68%
Cleburne
$28,160
41
71%
$35,698
5
Coffee
89%
21
Colbert
$30,855
77%
$27,503
46
Conecuh
69%
Coosa
$23,992
65
60%
35
Covington
$29,105
73%
17
Crenshaw
$31,233
78%
Cullman
$30,272
26
76%
25
Dale
$30,514
76%
42
Dallas
$28,141
70%
61
DeKalb
$25,252
63%
10
Elmore
$32,555
82%
$26,784
51
Escambia
67%
Etowah
$30,817
22
77%
53
Fayette
$26,664
67%
$25,507
60
Franklin
64%
$29,785
32
Geneva
75%
$31,691
14
Greene
79%
$30,177
28
Hale
76%
$28,998
36
Henry
73%
$34,476
7
Houston
86%
$29,546
34
Jackson
74%
Jefferson
$41,844
2
105%
Lamar
$25,731
58
64%
19
Lauderdale
$31,052
78%
$28,558
39
72%
Lawrence
Lee
$28,074
43
70%
Limestone
$31,948
13
80%
18
Lowndes
$31,212
78%
50
Macon
$26,934
67%
$40,218
3
Madison
101%
$31,981
12
Marengo
80%
57
Marion
$25,794
65%
$30,257
27
Marshall
76%
15
Mobile
$31,583
79%
49
Monroe
$27,226
68%
4
Montgomery
$38,160
96%
$31,540
16
79%
Morgan
Perry
$24,783
63
62%
Pickens
$28,673
38
72%
Pike
$32,656
9
82%
Randolph
$26,219
55
66%
Russell
$29,906
31
75%
St. Clair
$30,057
30
75%
Shelby
$42,273
1
106%
64
Sumter
$24,344
61%
Talladega
$28,906
37
72%
Tallapoosa
$30,175
29
76%
Tuscaloosa
$33,106
8
83%
Walker
$32,326
11
81%
Washington
$27,961
44
70%
Wilcox
$25,093
62
63%
64%
59
Winston
$25,512
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
133
Percent of 2010
Alabama Average
119%
100%
92%
105%
80%
68%
78%
68%
85%
92%
82%
79%
82%
88%
92%
81%
84%
107%
92%
82%
72%
87%
93%
90%
91%
84%
75%
97%
80%
92%
80%
76%
89%
95%
90%
87%
103%
88%
125%
77%
93%
85%
84%
95%
93%
80%
120%
95%
77%
90%
94%
81%
114%
94%
74%
86%
97%
78%
89%
90%
126%
73%
86%
90%
99%
96%
83%
75%
76%
Appendix 7-2
and Also by Places in Alabama with City School Systems in Alabama, 2009
Per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars) (Estimate)
Rank in
Rank in
Rank
Numb
Estimate Alabama
Cities with City School
Estimate
Alabama All Among City
er
Systems
PCI 2009
Name of Place in Alabama PCI 2009 All Places
Places
LEAs
n/a Gardendale, Alabama
$30,400
30
Gardendale, Alabama
$30,400
30
5 to 6
1
Albertville city, Alabama
$17,000
319
Mountain Brook City
$76,959
1
1
2
Alexander City city, Alabama
$20,521
166
Vestavia Hills City
$49,685
3
2
3
Andalusia city, Alabama
$20,509
167
Hoover City
$39,794
6
3
4
Anniston city, Alabama
$22,789
120
Madison City
$35,496
13
4
5
Arab city, Alabama
$24,438
79
Trussville City
$33,699
17
5
Homewood City
$30,931
25
6
6
Athens city, Alabama
$23,682
99
7
Attalla city, Alabama
$16,968
321
Huntsville City
$29,132
34
7
8
Auburn city, Alabama
$24,073
89
Leeds City
$25,516
60
8
9
Bessemer city, Alabama
$18,188
261
Muscle Shoals City
$24,927
69
9
10
Birmingham city, Alabama
$19,724
200
Enterprise City
$24,901
70
10
11
Boaz city, Alabama
$18,767
236
Jasper City
$24,749
74
11
12
Brewton city, Alabama
$20,162
182
Dothan City
$24,519
78
12
13
Cullman city, Alabama
$21,712
135
Arab City
$24,438
79
13
14
Daleville city, Alabama
$24,431
80
Daleville City
$24,431
80
14
15
Decatur city, Alabama
$23,436
103
Oxford City
$24,370
83
15
16
Demopolis city, Alabama
$20,189
179
Auburn City
$24,073
89
16
17
Dothan city, Alabama
$24,519
78
Saraland City
$23,819
92
17
18
Elba city, Alabama
$14,435
415
Athens City
$23,682
99
18
19
Enterprise city, Alabama
$24,901
70
Pell City
$23,581
100
19
20
Eufaula city, Alabama
$16,645
331
Linden City
$23,518
101
20
21
Fairfield city, Alabama
$18,602
240
Decatur City
$23,436
103
21
22
Florence city, Alabama
$20,778
159
Guntersville City
$22,899
117
22
23
Fort Payne city, Alabama
$19,923
191
Anniston City
$22,789
120
23
24
Gadsden city, Alabama
$18,056
267
Cullman City
$21,712
135
24
25
Geneva city, Alabama
$18,331
253
Tuscaloosa City
$21,325
144
25
26
Guntersville city, Alabama
$22,899
117
Hartselle City
$21,227
148
26
27
Haleyville city, Alabama
$14,367
416
Scottsboro City
$20,901
155
27
28
Hartselle city, Alabama
$21,227
148
Florence City
$20,778
159
28
Ozark City
$20,522
165
29
29
Homewood city, Alabama
$30,931
25
30
Hoover city, Alabama
$39,794
6
Alexander City
$20,521
166
30
31
Huntsville city, Alabama
$29,132
34
Andalusia City
$20,509
167
31
32
Jacksonville city, Alabama
$17,419
302
Tuscumbia City
$20,506
168
32
33
Jasper city, Alabama
$24,749
74
Opelika City
$20,497
169
33
34
Lanett city, Alabama
$15,536
378
Troy City
$20,436
171
34
35
Langston town, Alabama
$25,516
60
Demopolis City
$20,189
179
35
36
Leeds city, Alabama
$23,518
101
Brewton City
$20,162
182
36
37
Madison city, Alabama
$35,496
13
Roanoke City
$20,116
185
37
38
Midfield city, Alabama
$18,233
260
Fort Payne City
$19,923
191
38
39
Mountain Brook city, Alabama
$76,959
1
Winfield City
$19,818
196
39
40
Muscle Shoals city, Alabama
$24,927
69
Birmingham City
$19,724
200
40
41
Oneonta city, Alabama
$19,059
227
Sheffield City
$19,601
204
41
42
Opelika city, Alabama
$20,497
169
Oneonta City
$19,059
227
42
43
Opp city, Alabama
$18,260
258
Phenix City
$19,021
229
43
44
Oxford city, Alabama
$24,370
83
Sylacauga City
$18,773
235
44
45
Ozark city, Alabama
$20,522
165
Boaz City
$18,767
236
45
46
Pell City city, Alabama
$23,581
100
Fairfield City
$18,602
240
46
47
Phenix City city, Alabama
$19,021
229
Geneva City
$18,331
253
47
48
Piedmont city, Alabama
$16,169
350
Opp City
$18,260
258
48
49
Roanoke city, Alabama
$20,116
185
Midfield City
$18,233
260
49
50
Russellville city, Alabama
$16,641
332
Bessemer City
$18,188
261
50
51
Saraland city, Alabama
$23,819
92
Gadsden City
$18,056
267
51
52
Scottsboro city, Alabama
$20,901
155
Jacksonville City
$17,419
302
52
53
Selma city, Alabama
$16,809
326
Albertville City
$17,000
319
53
54
Sheffield city, Alabama
$19,601
204
Attalla City
$16,968
321
54
55
Sylacauga city, Alabama
$18,773
235
Selma City
$16,809
326
55
56
Talladega city, Alabama
$15,368
386
Tallassee City
$16,741
329
56
57
Tallassee city, Alabama
$16,741
329
Eufaula City
$16,645
331
57
58
Tarrant city, Alabama
$13,228
444
Russellville City
$16,641
332
58
59
Thomasville city, Alabama
$14,059
426
Piedmont City
$16,169
350
59
60
Troy city, Alabama
$20,436
171
Lanett City
$15,536
378
60
61
Trussville city, Alabama
$33,699
17
Talladega City
$15,368
386
61
62
Tuscaloosa city, Alabama
$21,325
144
Elba City
$14,435
415
62
63
Tuscumbia city, Alabama
$20,506
168
Haleyville City
$14,367
416
63
64
Vestavia Hills city, Alabama
$49,685
3
Thomasville City
$14,059
426
64
65
Winfield city, Alabama
$19,818
196
Tarrant City
$13,228
444
65
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2005-2009.
134
Appendix 7-3
Act of the Legislature No. 203, Approved February 7, 1891
135
Appendix 7-3 (continued)
.
136
137
Appendix 7-4
Section 269, Constitution of 1901 as Amended
Special county school taxes.
The several counties in this state shall have power to levy and collect a special tax not
exceeding ten cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable property in such counties, for the
support of public schools; provided, that the rate of such tax, the time it is to continue, and the
purpose thereof, shall have been first submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the county,
and voted for by three-fifths of those voting at such election; but the rate of such special tax
shall not increase the rate of taxation, state and county combined, in any one year, to more than
one dollar and twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable property; excluding,
however, all special county taxes for public buildings, roads, bridges, and the payment of debts
existing at the ratification of the Constitution of eighteen hundred and seventy-five. The funds
arising from such special school tax shall be so apportioned and paid through the proper school
officials to the several schools in the townships and districts in the county that the school terms
of the respective schools shall be extended by such supplement as nearly the same length of
time as practicable; provided, that this section shall not apply to the cities of Decatur, New
Decatur, and Cullman.
138
Appendix 7-5
Amendment 3, Constitution of 1901 as Amended:
Statewide Application 3.0 Mill Countywide and
3.0 Mill School Tax District Ad Valorem Tax
Article XIX, Section 1. The several counties in the state shall have power to levy and
collect a special county tax not exceeding thirty cents on each one hundred dollars worth of
taxable property in such counties in addition to that now authorized or that may hereafter be
authorized for public school purposes, and in addition to that now authorized under section 260
of article XIV of the Constitution; provided, that the rate of such tax, the time it is to continue and
the purpose thereof shall have been first submitted to the vote of the qualified electors of the
county, and voted for by a majority of those voting at such election.
Section 2. The several school districts of any county in the state shall have power to levy
and collect a special district tax not exceeding thirty cents on each one hundred dollars worth of
taxable property in such district for public school purposes; provided, that a school district under
the meaning of this section shall include incorporated cities or towns, or any school district of
which an incorporated city or town is a part, or such other school districts now existing or
hereafter formed as may be approved by the county board of education; provided further, that
the rate of such tax, the time it is to continue and the purpose thereof shall have been first
submitted to the vote of the qualified electors of the district and voted for by a majority of those
voting at such election; provided further, that no district tax shall be voted or collected except in
such counties as are levying and collecting not less than a three-mill special county school tax.
Section 3. The funds arising from the special county school tax levied and collected by
any county shall be apportioned and expended as the law may direct, and the funds arising from
the special school tax levied in any district which votes the same independently of the county
shall be expended for the exclusive benefit of the district, as the law may direct (Constitution of
1901, Amendment 3).
139
Appendix 7-6
Jefferson County Consolidation School Tax Amendment.
Jefferson county shall have power to levy and collect an additional tax of 50 cents on
each $100 of taxable property therein for public school purposes in the same manner and
subject to the same election requirements as are now provided in the third amendment to this
Constitution with respect to county school taxes; provided that in any incorporated municipality
where special or additional taxes are being levied and collected for public school purposes,
including the servicing of debts incurred for public schools, the additional tax herein provided for
shall be reduced by the amount of such special or additional municipal public school taxes in the
corporate limits where such special or additional municipal public school taxes are being levied
and collected and during the time such taxes are levied and collected; and provided further that
only qualified electors residing within the area in which the additional tax herein authorized is
proposed to be levied shall have the right to vote at any election held for the purpose of voting
such additional tax, and qualified voters residing in incorporated municipalities which are levying
and collecting a full tax of 50 cents on each $100 of taxable property for public school purposes
shall not be entitled to vote at such election. So long as the public schools in any incorporated
municipality are operated separately from those of Jefferson county, the funds arising from such
additional tax on taxable property in such municipality shall be expended only by the board of
education or other authority charged with the operation of the public schools in such municipality
and only for the benefit of the public schools therein. The additional tax herein authorized shall
be in addition to the county and the district school taxes authorized in section 269 of and the
third amendment to this Constitution and in addition to the county taxes authorized in section
215 thereof. All statutes relating to the holding of elections and the levy and collection of taxes
in counties under the third amendment to this Constitution, with the exception hereinabove
provided, shall apply.
140
Appendix 7-7
Amendment 175, Constitution of 1901 as Amended
Special District Tax for Furtherance of Education in Jefferson County
In addition to any taxes now authorized or that may hereafter be authorized by the
Constitution and laws of Alabama, the several school districts of Jefferson county shall, subject
to an election in each such school district as hereinafter provided, have power to levy and
collect a special district tax of not exceeding fifty (50) cents on each one hundred dollars ($100)
of taxable property in such district for the furtherance of education therein. A school district
within the meaning of this section shall include (a) that part of Jefferson county outside of the
municipalities of Birmingham, Bessemer, Fairfield, Tarrant City and Mountain Brook as one
district, (b) the city of Birmingham as one district, (c) the city of Bessemer as one district, (d) the
city of Fairfield as one district, (e) the city of Tarrant City as one district, and (f) the city of
Mountain Brook as one district. No tax shall be levied hereunder unless the rate of such tax, the
time such tax is to continue and the purpose thereof shall have been first submitted to the vote
of the qualified electors in each such district and voted for by a majority of those voting at such
election. Any election on any such district tax shall be called and held, the results declared, and
the tax levied and collected in the same manner as now or hereafter provided by law in the case
of school district taxes authorized by amendment III [3] to the Constitution of Alabama, except
that no county-wide tax shall be required as a condition precedent for a district tax under this
amendment. The holding of one election shall not preclude a later election in the same district
but no election in a district shall be held within two years from the date of the last election held
in such district under the authority of this amendment. The proceeds of any special district tax
authorized by this amendment shall be expended for the support of education in the district in
which levied.
141
Appendix 7-8
Statewide 3.0 Mill School Tax District Ad Valorem Tax
In addition to any and all taxes now authorized, or that may be hereafter authorized by
the Constitution and laws of Alabama, the several school districts of any in the state shall have
power to levy and collect an additional special district school tax not exceeding thirty cents on
each one hundred dollars worth of taxable property in such district for public school purposes in
addition to that now authorized or that may hereafter be authorized for public school purposes;
provided, that a school district under this section shall include incorporated cities or towns, or
any school district of which an incorporated city or town is a part, or such other school districts
now existing or hereafter formed as may be approved by the county board of education;
provided, further, that the rate of such tax, the time it is to continue and the purpose thereof
shall have been first submitted to the vote of the qualified electors of the district, and voted for a
majority of those voting at such election.
142
Appendix 7-9
Calculation of Yield per Mill per ADM for County School Systems for FY 2012-13
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
System
ID
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
043
044
045
046
047
048
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
067
System Description
Autauga County
Baldwin County
Barbour County
Bibb County
Blount County
Bullock County
Butler County
Calhoun County
Chambers County
Cherokee County
Chilton County
Choctaw County
Clarke County
Clay County
Cleburne County
Coffee County
Colbert County
Conecuh County
Coosa County
Covington County
Crenshaw County
Cullman County
Dale County
Dallas County
Dekalb County
Elmore County
Escambia County
Etowah County
Fayette County
Franklin County
Geneva County
Greene County
Hale County
Henry County
Houston County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Lamar County
Lauderdale County
Lawrence County
Lee County
Limestone County
Lowndes County
Macon County
Madison County
Marengo County
Marion County
Marshall County
Mobile County
Monroe County
Montgomery County
Morgan County
Perry County
Pickens County
Pike County
Randolph County
Russell County
St Clair County
Shelby County
Sumter County
Talladega County
Tallapoosa County
Tuscaloosa County
Walker County
Washington County
Wilcox County
Winston County
FY 2013
Rank Yield
Yield Per
FY 2012
Chargeback
FY 2013
Per Mill Mill Per ADM
of 10.0 Mills Yield Per Mill
ADM
9,838.15
6,141,330
614,133
$62.42
18
28,319.10
39,431,760
3,943,176
$139.24
2
1,012.75
1,005,420
100,542
$99.28
104
3,673.40
1,487,100
148,710
$40.48
77
8,404.10
3,399,800
339,980
$40.45
39
1,538.30
811,160
81,116
$52.73
108
3,278.80
2,016,860
201,686
$61.51
62
9,211.10
3,807,000
380,700
$41.33
35
3,848.75
2,603,900
260,390
$67.66
51
4,065.75
2,977,130
297,713
$73.22
44
7,651.90
3,995,260
399,526
$52.21
32
1,770.75
2,171,760
217,176
$122.65
58
3,209.60
2,671,640
267,164
$83.24
48
2,022.70
1,035,050
103,505
$51.17
100
2,597.75
1,159,450
115,945
$44.63
96
2,092.05
1,369,640
136,964
$65.47
83
2,757.65
3,300,860
330,086
$119.70
41
1,598.55
1,468,590
146,859
$91.87
78
1,181.75
1,638,540
163,854
$138.65
69
3,100.40
2,310,090
231,009
$74.51
57
2,175.90
1,234,930
123,493
$56.75
91
9,625.75
5,498,270
549,827
$57.12
22
2,942.40
1,534,600
153,460
$52.15
75
3,777.40
1,964,570
196,457
$52.01
63
8,688.05
3,376,970
337,697
$38.87
40
11,487.90
8,898,970
889,897
$77.46
12
4,523.20
3,042,250
304,225
$67.26
43
9,296.10
4,820,830
482,083
$51.86
28
2,391.45
1,311,210
131,121
$54.83
86
3,188.35
1,500,420
150,042
$47.06
76
2,728.40
1,250,530
125,053
$45.83
90
1,272.95
1,271,080
127,108
$99.85
88
2,808.75
1,334,800
133,480
$47.52
85
2,811.50
1,442,750
144,275
$51.32
80
6,479.35
4,826,070
482,607
$74.48
27
5,664.05
2,101,840
210,184
$37.11
61
$69.33
36,058.15
25,000,580
2,500,058
5
2,387.65
1,214,520
121,452
$50.87
93
8,587.05
4,017,640
401,764
$46.79
30
5,146.00
4,780,570
478,057
$92.90
29
9,847.25
5,301,250
530,125
$53.83
25
9,016.70
3,634,500
363,450
$40.31
37
1,825.95
1,032,500
103,250
$56.55
101
2,587.95
1,349,260
134,926
$52.14
84
19,548.00
9,702,560
970,256
$49.63
11
1,379.40
1,571,110
157,111
$113.90
71
3,524.05
1,845,290
184,529
$52.36
65
5,771.65
1,537,620
153,762
$26.64
74
60,946.05
45,365,570
4,536,557
$74.44
1
3,829.60
2,112,780
211,278
$55.17
60
31,388.00
25,082,770
2,508,277
$79.91
4
7,772.15
7,506,890
750,689
$96.59
15
1,748.55
783,640
78,364
$44.82
110
2,840.25
1,442,800
144,280
$50.80
79
2,206.50
1,221,300
122,130
$55.35
92
2,265.90
2,158,060
215,806
$95.24
59
3,492.60
1,830,150
183,015
$52.40
66
8,604.25
5,153,720
515,372
$59.90
26
28,432.20
23,444,520
2,344,452
$82.46
6
1,963.20
1,052,800
105,280
$53.63
98
7,632.95
6,782,280
678,228
$88.86
16
3,001.75
3,916,420
391,642
$130.47
33
17,641.46
10,811,320
1,081,132
$61.28
10
8,015.25
5,373,270
537,327
$67.04
23
3,300.85
4,015,320
401,532
$121.65
31
1,848.95
1,259,360
125,936
$68.11
89
2,626.55
2,644,740
264,474
$100.69
49
143
Rank Yield
Per Mill Per
ADM
LEA Variation
from State
Average Per ADM
55
2
17
104
105
76
57
103
47
41
79
6
28
85
99
52
8
21
3
35
63
62
80
82
108
33
48
83
69
92
94
16
91
84
36
112
45
86
93
20
72
106
64
81
89
11
78
128
37
68
30
18
98
87
67
19
77
61
29
74
24
4
58
49
7
46
15
($9.27)
$67.55
$27.58
($31.21)
($31.24)
($18.96)
($10.18)
($30.36)
($4.04)
$1.53
($19.48)
$50.95
$11.54
($20.52)
($27.06)
($6.23)
$48.00
$20.17
$66.96
$2.81
($14.94)
($14.57)
($19.54)
($19.69)
($32.83)
$5.77
($4.44)
($19.84)
($16.87)
($24.64)
($25.86)
$28.16
($24.17)
($20.38)
$2.79
($34.59)
($2.36)
($20.83)
($24.91)
$21.20
($17.86)
($31.39)
($15.15)
($19.56)
($22.06)
$42.20
($19.33)
($45.05)
$2.74
($16.53)
$8.22
$24.89
($26.88)
($20.90)
($16.35)
$23.55
($19.29)
($11.80)
$10.76
($18.07)
$17.16
$58.78
($10.41)
($4.66)
$49.95
($3.58)
$29.00
Appendix 7-10
Calculation of Yield per Mill per ADM for City School Systems for FY 2012-13
N
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
System
ID
101
102
104
105
106
107
109
110
113
114
115
116
125
126
127
128
130
131
132
133
137
141
143
144
146
154
155
156
157
158
159
162
163
165
167
168
169
171
175
176
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
197
198
199
200
201
202
204
205
System Description
Albertville City
Alexander City
Andalusia City
Anniston City
Arab City
Athens City
Attalla City
Auburn City
Bessemer City
Birmingham City
Boaz City
Brewton City
Cullman City
Daleville City
Decatur City
Demopolis City
Dothan City
Elba City
Enterprise City
Eufaula City
Fairfield City
Florence City
Fort Payne City
Gadsden City
Geneva City
Guntersville City
Haleyville City
Hartselle City
Homewood City
Hoover City
Huntsville City
Jacksonville City
Jasper City
Lanett City
Leeds City
Linden City
Madison City
Midfield City
Mountain Brook City
Muscle Shoals City
Oneonta City
Opelika City
Opp City
Oxford City
Ozark City
Pell City
Phenix City
Piedmont City
Saraland City
Roanoke City
Russellville City
Scottsboro City
Selma City
Sheffield City
Sylacauga City
Talladega City
Tallassee City
Tarrant City
Thomasville City
Troy City
Tuscaloosa City
Tuscumbia City
Vestavia Hills City
Winfield City
Trussville City
TOTAL
FY 2013
Rank Yield
Yield Per
FY 2012
Chargeback
FY 2013
Per Mill Mill Per ADM
of 10.0 Mills Yield Per Mill
ADM
1,874,450
187,445
$45.26
4,141.50
64
$73.41
3,179.10
2,333,890
233,389
55
1,712.70
1,029,510
102,951
$60.11
102
$117.19
2,251.40
2,638,370
263,837
50
2,505.05
1,070,760
107,076
$42.74
97
$73.32
3,172.40
2,326,140
232,614
56
1,866.55
421,660
42,166
$22.59
124
754,987
7,549,870
$108.12
6,982.85
14
4,411.30
2,771,130
277,113
$62.82
45
26,014,090
2,601,409
$104.03
25,005.60
3
2,154.10
844,350
84,435
$39.20
107
660,950
66,095
$55.38
1,193.40
114
$89.63
3,038.90
2,723,780
272,378
46
543,550
54,355
$45.24
1,201.50
119
$76.25
8,516.40
6,494,020
649,402
17
2,332.40
805,660
80,566
$34.54
109
$87.03
8,240,200
824,020
9,468.35
13
$36.73
738.10
271,100
27,110
131
6,587.10
2,545,490
254,549
$38.64
52
$44.40
2,625.35
1,165,540
116,554
95
$31.07
1,845.10
573,300
57,330
117
$79.72
3,447,980
344,798
4,325.25
38
1,625,370
162,537
$53.70
3,026.55
70
3,878,520
387,852
5,455.35
$71.10
34
383,670
38,367
1,245.65
$30.80
128
1,933.30
1,288,880
128,888
$66.67
87
1,705.90
324,360
32,436
$19.01
130
3,132.95
1,051,090
105,109
$33.55
99
3,590.65
5,351,320
535,132
$149.03
24
13,409.75
14,858,850
1,485,885
$110.81
8
22,811.10
19,042,020
1,904,202
$83.48
7
1,626.25
888,300
88,830
$54.62
106
2,700.40
1,767,290
176,729
$65.45
67
829.05
414,900
41,490
$50.05
126
1,641.05
1,178,320
117,832
$71.80
94
484.20
144,530
14,453
$29.85
132
9,018.75
5,577,400
557,740
$61.84
20
1,334.90
360,570
36,057
$27.01
129
4,490.00
5,516,440
551,644
$122.86
21
$54.83
2,858.85
1,567,390
156,739
72
$48.11
1,494.45
718,990
71,899
112
4,260.00
3,747,730
374,773
$87.97
36
$31.51
1,357.45
427,800
42,780
123
4,101.25
2,719,750
271,975
$66.32
47
2,383.80
917,880
91,788
$38.50
105
250,726
4,152.60
2,507,260
$60.38
53
6,758.95
2,376,040
237,604
$35.15
54
1,164.85
434,630
43,463
$37.31
122
2,228.85
1,546,020
154,602
$69.36
73
1,534.95
402,590
40,259
$26.23
127
$26.47
2,471.70
654,230
65,423
115
2,700.95
1,442,450
144,245
$53.41
81
3,809.70
1,380,450
138,045
$36.24
82
1,046.40
470,910
47,091
$45.00
120
2,390.95
1,028,680
102,868
$43.02
103
$31.51
2,375.50
748,530
74,853
111
574,510
57,451
$30.25
1,899.35
116
1,200.95
677,400
67,740
$56.41
113
1,479.25
468,290
46,829
$31.66
121
2,076.15
1,640,150
164,015
$79.00
68
1,174,546
$118.20
9,937.30
11,745,460
9
1,518.75
558,240
55,824
$36.76
118
6,445.70
5,878,950
587,895
$91.21
19
1,259.50
417,330
41,733
$33.13
125
4,187.90
3,096,150
309,615
$73.93
42
741,057.86
531,302,970
53,130,297
n/a
$71.70
144
Rank Yield
Per Mill Per
ADM
LEA Variation
from State
Average Per ADM
95
39
60
10
102
40
131
13
54
14
107
66
23
96
34
117
26
114
109
100
123
31
73
43
124
50
132
118
1
12
27
71
53
88
42
126
56
127
5
70
90
25
121
51
110
59
116
111
44
130
129
75
115
97
101
122
125
65
120
32
9
113
22
119
38
n/a
($26.44)
$1.72
($11.58)
$45.49
($28.95)
$1.63
($49.10)
$36.42
($8.88)
$32.34
($32.50)
($16.31)
$17.94
($26.46)
$4.56
($37.15)
$15.33
($34.97)
($33.05)
($27.30)
($40.62)
$8.02
($17.99)
($0.60)
($40.89)
($5.03)
($52.68)
($38.15)
$77.34
$39.11
$11.78
($17.07)
($6.25)
($21.65)
$0.11
($41.85)
($9.85)
($44.68)
$51.17
($16.87)
($23.58)
$16.28
($40.18)
($5.38)
($33.19)
($11.32)
($36.54)
($34.38)
($2.33)
($45.47)
($45.23)
($18.29)
($35.46)
($26.69)
($28.67)
($40.18)
($41.45)
($15.29)
($40.04)
$7.30
$46.50
($34.94)
$19.51
($38.56)
$2.24
$0.00
Appendix 7-11
Tax Capacity and Tax Effort for County School Systems for FY 2012-13
Total All Local
Tax-Based
Revenues
FY 2013
Yield Per
One Mill
Yield Per
Mill Per
ADM
Rank Yield
Per Mill Per
ADM
Number
Equivalent
Mills
Rank
Equivalent
Mills
18
$62.42
55
18.76
117
2
$139.24
2
25.70
86
100,542
104
$99.28
17
14.80
129
1,487,100
148,710
77
$40.48
104
25.52
87
3,399,800
339,980
39
$40.45
105
18.99
116
811,160
81,116
108
$52.73
76
21.08
105
2,016,860
201,686
62
$61.51
57
20.76
106
3,807,000
380,700
35
$41.33
103
36.00
51
3,848.75
2,603,900
260,390
51
$67.66
47
22.04
101
$8,044,650
4,065.75
2,977,130
297,713
44
$73.22
41
27.02
82
$7,675,021
7,651.90
3,995,260
399,526
32
$52.21
79
19.21
114
Choctaw County
$4,241,566
1,770.75
2,171,760
217,176
58
$122.65
6
19.53
112
Clarke County
$4,258,640
3,209.60
2,671,640
267,164
48
$83.24
28
15.94
125
014
Clay County
$1,740,744
2,022.70
1,035,050
103,505
100
$51.17
85
16.82
123
15
015
Cleburne County
$2,578,350
2,597.75
1,159,450
115,945
96
$44.63
99
22.24
98
16
016
Coffee County
$3,159,838
2,092.05
1,369,640
136,964
83
$65.47
52
23.07
94
17
017
Colbert County
$9,266,031
2,757.65
3,300,860
330,086
41
$119.70
8
28.07
77
18
018
Conecuh County
$4,382,221
1,598.55
1,468,590
146,859
78
$91.87
21
29.84
71
19
019
Coosa County
$2,186,249
1,181.75
1,638,540
163,854
69
$138.65
3
13.34
130
20
020
Covington County
$4,254,030
3,100.40
2,310,090
231,009
57
$74.51
35
18.41
119
21
021
Crenshaw County
$2,408,272
2,175.90
1,234,930
123,493
91
$56.75
63
19.50
113
22
022
Cullman County
$14,659,000
9,625.75
5,498,270
549,827
22
$57.12
62
26.66
84
23
023
Dale County
$4,347,376
2,942.40
1,534,600
153,460
75
$52.15
80
28.33
75
24
024
Dallas County
$2,927,739
3,777.40
1,964,570
196,457
63
$52.01
82
14.90
128
25
025
Dekalb County
$8,870,826
8,688.05
3,376,970
337,697
40
$38.87
108
26.27
85
26
026
Elmore County
$16,683,067
11,487.90
8,898,970
889,897
12
$77.46
33
18.75
118
27
027
Escambia County
$8,601,750
4,523.20
3,042,250
304,225
43
$67.26
48
28.27
76
28
028
Etowah County
$9,966,254
9,296.10
4,820,830
482,083
28
$51.86
83
20.67
107
29
029
Fayette County
$2,965,496
2,391.45
1,311,210
131,121
86
$54.83
69
22.62
96
30
030
Franklin County
$4,937,817
3,188.35
1,500,420
150,042
76
$47.06
92
32.91
60
31
031
Geneva County
$1,941,530
2,728.40
1,250,530
125,053
90
$45.83
94
15.53
127
32
032
Greene County
$2,757,600
1,272.95
1,271,080
127,108
88
$99.85
16
21.69
103
33
033
Hale County
$3,374,100
2,808.75
1,334,800
133,480
85
$47.52
91
25.28
90
34
034
Henry County
$2,949,803
2,811.50
1,442,750
144,275
80
$51.32
84
20.45
110
35
035
Houston County
$9,854,662
6,479.35
4,826,070
482,607
27
$74.48
36
20.42
111
36
036
Jackson County
$9,844,423
5,664.05
2,101,840
210,184
61
$37.11
112
46.84
21
37
037
Jefferson County
$82,385,739
36,058.15
25,000,580
2,500,058
5
$69.33
45
32.95
59
38
038
Lamar County
$2,319,427
2,387.65
1,214,520
121,452
93
$50.87
86
19.10
115
39
039
Lauderdale County
$13,503,832
8,587.05
4,017,640
401,764
30
$46.79
93
33.61
57
40
040
Lawrence County
$10,616,570
5,146.00
4,780,570
478,057
29
$92.90
20
22.21
99
41
041
Lee County
$21,905,350
9,847.25
5,301,250
530,125
25
$53.83
72
41.32
34
42
042
Limestone County
$16,896,500
9,016.70
3,634,500
363,450
37
$40.31
106
46.49
23
43
043
Lowndes County
$3,236,975
1,825.95
1,032,500
103,250
101
$56.55
64
31.35
65
44
044
Macon County
$4,328,410
2,587.95
1,349,260
134,926
84
$52.14
81
32.08
63
45
045
Madison County
$40,759,560
19,548.00
9,702,560
970,256
11
$49.63
89
42.01
33
46
046
Marengo County
$1,991,260
1,379.40
1,571,110
157,111
71
$113.90
11
12.67
132
47
047
Marion County
$3,339,013
3,524.05
1,845,290
184,529
65
$52.36
78
18.09
120
48
048
Marshall County
$7,692,035
5,771.65
1,537,620
153,762
74
$26.64
128
50.03
13
49
049
Mobile County
$142,204,792
60,946.05
45,365,570
4,536,557
1
$74.44
37
31.35
66
50
050
Monroe County
$4,559,000
3,829.60
2,112,780
211,278
60
$55.17
68
21.58
104
51
051
Montgomery County
$61,686,682
31,388.00
25,082,770
2,508,277
4
$79.91
30
24.59
92
52
052
Morgan County
$22,795,321
7,772.15
7,506,890
750,689
15
$96.59
18
30.37
70
53
053
Perry County
$2,146,459
1,748.55
783,640
78,364
110
$44.82
98
27.39
81
54
054
Pickens County
$2,437,695
2,840.25
1,442,800
144,280
79
$50.80
87
16.90
122
55
055
Pike County
$4,386,239
2,206.50
1,221,300
122,130
92
$55.35
67
35.91
52
56
056
Randolph County
$3,378,891
2,265.90
2,158,060
215,806
59
$95.24
19
15.66
126
57
057
Russell County
$5,803,076
3,492.60
1,830,150
183,015
66
$52.40
77
31.71
64
58
058
St Clair County
$11,830,920
8,604.25
5,153,720
515,372
26
$59.90
61
22.96
95
59
059
Shelby County
$83,347,576
28,432.20
23,444,520
2,344,452
6
$82.46
29
35.55
54
60
060
Sumter County
$3,847,495
1,963.20
1,052,800
105,280
98
$53.63
74
36.55
50
61
061
Talladega County
$17,234,221
7,632.95
6,782,280
678,228
16
$88.86
24
25.41
89
62
062
Tallapoosa County
$6,995,130
3,001.75
3,916,420
391,642
33
$130.47
4
17.86
121
63
063
Tuscaloosa County
$42,335,044
17,641.46
10,811,320
1,081,132
10
$61.28
58
39.16
44
64
064
Walker County
$16,380,000
8,015.25
5,373,270
537,327
23
$67.04
49
30.48
68
65
065
Washington County
$5,143,319
3,300.85
4,015,320
401,532
31
$121.65
7
12.81
131
66
066
Wilcox County
$2,812,360
1,848.95
1,259,360
125,936
89
$68.11
46
22.33
97
67
067
Winston County
$4,406,080
2,626.55
2,644,740
264,474
49
$100.69
15
16.66
124
LEA
Code
1
001
Autauga County
$11,519,330
9,838.15
6,141,330
614,133
2
002
Baldwin County
$101,338,513
28,319.10
39,431,760
3,943,176
3
003
Barbour County
$1,487,994
1,012.75
1,005,420
4
004
Bibb County
$3,795,000
3,673.40
5
005
Blount County
$6,455,300
8,404.10
6
006
Bullock County
$1,710,196
1,538.30
7
007
Butler County
$4,186,860
3,278.80
8
008
Calhoun County
$13,705,397
9,211.10
9
009
Chambers County
$5,737,865
10
010
Cherokee County
11
011
Chilton County
12
012
13
013
14
System Description
FY 2012
ADM
FY 2013
Chargeback
of 10.0 Mills
N
145
Rank
Value Per
Mill
Appendix 7-12
Tax Capacity and Tax Effort for City School Systems for FY 2012-13
Total All Local
Tax-Based
Revenues
Rank
Value Per
Mill
Yield Per
Mill Per
ADM
Rank Yield
Per Mill Per
ADM
Number
Equivalent
Mills
Rank
Equivalent
Mills
187,445
64
233,389
55
$45.26
95
20.46
109
$73.41
39
22.18
102,951
100
102
$60.11
60
25.19
2,638,370
263,837
91
50
$117.19
10
20.54
108
2,505.05
1,070,760
3,172.40
2,326,140
107,076
97
$42.74
102
33.62
56
232,614
56
$73.32
40
44.20
$1,655,860
1,866.55
28
421,660
42,166
124
$22.59
131
39.27
$32,791,755
43
6,982.85
7,549,870
754,987
14
$108.12
13
43.43
31
$7,768,355
4,411.30
2,771,130
277,113
45
$62.82
54
28.03
79
$76,279,061
25,005.60
26,014,090
2,601,409
3
$104.03
14
29.32
73
Boaz City
$4,585,118
2,154.10
844,350
84,435
107
$39.20
107
54.30
6
116
Brewton City
$3,486,750
1,193.40
660,950
66,095
114
$55.38
66
52.75
9
80
121
Chickasaw City
$1,049,453
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
81
125
Cullman City
$8,292,343
3,038.90
2,723,780
272,378
46
$89.63
23
30.44
69
82
126
Daleville City
$1,678,950
1,201.50
543,550
54,355
119
$45.24
96
30.89
67
83
127
Decatur City
$34,440,876
8,516.40
6,494,020
649,402
17
$76.25
34
53.03
7
84
128
Demopolis City
$2,671,403
2,332.40
805,660
80,566
109
$34.54
117
33.16
58
85
130
Dothan City
$18,129,286
9,468.35
8,240,200
824,020
13
$87.03
26
22.00
102
86
131
Elba City
$1,089,884
738.10
271,100
27,110
131
$36.73
114
40.20
37
87
132
Enterprise City
$10,007,535
6,587.10
2,545,490
254,549
52
$38.64
109
39.31
42
88
133
Eufaula City
$4,748,573
2,625.35
1,165,540
116,554
95
$44.40
100
40.74
35
89
137
Fairfield City
$2,988,961
1,845.10
573,300
57,330
117
$31.07
123
52.14
10
90
141
Florence City
$15,671,881
4,325.25
3,447,980
344,798
38
$79.72
31
45.45
26
91
143
Fort Payne City
$4,842,670
3,026.55
1,625,370
162,537
70
$53.70
73
29.79
72
92
144
Gadsden City
$9,858,280
5,455.35
3,878,520
387,852
34
$71.10
43
25.42
88
93
146
Geneva City
$1,552,946
1,245.65
383,670
38,367
128
$30.80
124
40.48
36
94
154
Guntersville City
$4,614,882
1,933.30
1,288,880
128,888
87
$66.67
50
35.81
53
95
155
Haleyville City
$2,852,266
1,705.90
324,360
32,436
130
$19.01
132
87.94
2
96
156
Hartselle City
$22,282,046
3,132.95
1,051,090
105,109
99
$33.55
118
211.99
1
97
157
Homewood City
$25,480,399
3,590.65
5,351,320
535,132
24
$149.03
1
47.62
19
98
158
Hoover City
$64,623,912
13,409.75
14,858,850
1,485,885
8
$110.81
12
43.49
30
99
159
Huntsville City
$86,937,168
22,811.10
19,042,020
1,904,202
7
$83.48
27
45.66
24
100
162
Jacksonville City
$2,906,390
1,626.25
888,300
88,830
106
$54.62
71
32.72
61
101
163
Jasper City
$7,483,236
2,700.40
1,767,290
176,729
67
$65.45
53
42.34
32
102
165
Lanett City
$1,144,935
829.05
414,900
41,490
126
$50.05
88
27.60
80
103
167
Leeds City
$3,847,776
1,641.05
1,178,320
117,832
94
$71.80
42
32.65
62
104
168
Linden City
$575,205
484.20
144,530
14,453
132
$29.85
126
39.80
39
105
169
Madison City
$28,933,166
9,018.75
5,577,400
557,740
20
$61.84
56
51.88
11
106
171
Midfield City
$1,684,972
1,334.90
360,570
36,057
129
$27.01
127
46.73
22
107
175
Mountain Brook City
$27,463,568
4,490.00
5,516,440
551,644
21
$122.86
5
49.78
15
108
176
Muscle Shoals City
$6,897,959
2,858.85
1,567,390
156,739
72
$54.83
70
44.01
29
109
178
Oneonta City
$1,712,709
1,494.45
718,990
71,899
112
$48.11
90
23.82
93
110
179
Opelika City
$14,070,655
4,260.00
3,747,730
374,773
36
$87.97
25
37.54
48
111
180
Opp City
$2,098,600
1,357.45
427,800
42,780
123
$31.51
121
49.06
18
112
181
Oxford City
$13,698,424
4,101.25
2,719,750
271,975
47
$66.32
51
50.37
12
113
182
Ozark City
$4,092,650
2,383.80
917,880
91,788
105
$38.50
110
44.59
27
114
183
Pell City
$7,325,800
4,152.60
2,507,260
250,726
53
$60.38
59
29.22
74
115
184
Phenix City
$11,824,469
6,758.95
2,376,040
237,604
54
$35.15
116
49.77
16
116
185
Piedmont City
$1,635,483
1,164.85
434,630
43,463
122
$37.31
111
37.63
47
117
187
Saraland City
$6,195,809
2,228.85
1,546,020
154,602
73
$69.36
44
40.08
38
118
188
Roanoke City
$1,599,040
1,534.95
402,590
40,259
127
$26.23
130
39.72
41
119
189
Russellville City
$4,924,778
2,471.70
654,230
65,423
115
$26.47
129
75.28
3
120
190
Scottsboro City
$5,733,507
2,700.95
1,442,450
144,245
81
$53.41
75
39.75
40
121
191
Selma City
$3,702,450
3,809.70
1,380,450
138,045
82
$36.24
115
26.82
83
122
192
Sheffield City
$2,727,023
1,046.40
470,910
47,091
120
$45.00
97
57.91
4
123
193
Sylacauga City
$3,960,283
2,390.95
1,028,680
102,868
103
$43.02
101
38.50
46
124
194
Talladega City
$3,410,615
2,375.50
748,530
74,853
111
$31.51
122
45.56
25
125
195
Tallassee City
$2,863,941
1,899.35
574,510
57,451
116
$30.25
125
49.85
14
126
196
Satsuma City
$2,127,394
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
127
197
Tarrant City
$2,375,651
1,200.95
677,400
67,740
113
$56.41
65
35.07
55
128
198
Thomasville City
$2,312,590
1,479.25
468,290
46,829
121
$31.66
120
49.38
17
129
199
Troy City
$4,602,800
2,076.15
1,640,150
164,015
68
$79.00
32
28.06
78
130
200
Tuscaloosa City
$45,666,350
9,937.30
11,745,460
1,174,546
9
$118.20
9
38.88
45
131
201
Tuscumbia City
$3,210,059
1,518.75
558,240
55,824
118
$36.76
113
57.50
5
132
202
Vestavia Hills City
$31,023,583
6,445.70
5,878,950
587,895
19
$91.21
22
52.77
8
133
204
Winfield City
$1,966,341
1,259.50
417,330
41,733
125
$33.13
119
47.12
20
134
205
Trussville City
$11,620,542
4,187.90
3,096,150
309,615
42
$73.93
38
37.53
49
TOTAL
$1,720,223,377
741,057.86
531,302,970
53,130,297
n/a
$71.70
n/a
32.38
n/a
LEA
Code
68
101
Albertville City
$3,835,333
4,141.50
1,874,450
69
102
Alexander City
$5,177,260
3,179.10
2,333,890
70
104
Andalusia City
$2,593,191
1,712.70
1,029,510
71
105
Anniston City
$5,418,945
2,251.40
72
106
Arab City
$3,599,560
73
107
Athens City
$10,281,243
74
109
Attalla City
75
110
Auburn City
76
113
Bessemer City
77
114
Birmingham City
78
115
79
System Description
FY 2012
ADM
FY 2013
Chargeback
of 10.0 Mills
N
FY 2013
Yield Per
One Mill
n/a
n/a
n/a
146
Appendix 7-13
for County School Systems for FY 2012-13
#
ID #
System Description
FY 2012
ADM
FY 2013
Yield Per
Mill
Yield Per Rank Yield Number
Mill Per
Per Mill
of Mills
ADM
Per ADM Equalized
State
Allocation
from PSF
Local Match
Total
Capital
Purchase
Total Per
ADM
55
1.041451
$ 2,414,418
639,589
3,054,008
$
310.42
2
1.041451
$ 4,684,332
4,106,625
8,790,956
$
310.42
99.28
17
1.041451
$
209,673
104,710
314,383
$
310.42
40.48
104
1.041451
$
985,441
154,874
1,140,315
$
310.42
$
40.45
105
1.041451
$ 2,254,770
354,073
2,608,843
$
310.42
81,116
$
52.73
76
1.041451
$
393,048
84,478
477,527
$
310.42
3,278.80
201,686
$
61.51
57
1.041451
$
807,775
210,046
1,017,821
$
310.42
9,211.10
380,700
$
41.33
103
1.041451
$ 2,462,875
396,480
2,859,356
$
310.42
1
001
Autauga County
9,838.15
614,133
2
002
Baldwin County
28,319.10
3,943,176
$
3
003
Barbour County
1,012.75
100,542
$
4
004
Bibb County
3,673.40
148,710
$
5
005
Blount County
8,404.10
339,980
6
006
Bullock County
1,538.30
7
007
Butler County
8
008
Calhoun County
62.42
$ 139.24
9
009
Chambers County
3,848.75
260,390
$
67.66
47
1.041451
$
923,565
271,183
1,194,748
$
310.42
10
010
Cherokee County
4,065.75
297,713
$
73.22
41
1.041451
$
952,057
310,054
1,262,110
$
310.42
11
011
Chilton County
7,651.90
399,526
$
52.21
79
1.041451
$ 1,959,254
416,087
2,375,341
$
310.42
12
012
Choctaw County
1,770.75
217,176
$ 122.65
6
1.041451
$
323,507
226,178
549,685
$
310.42
13
013
Clarke County
3,209.60
267,164
$
83.24
28
1.041451
$
718,102
278,238
996,340
$
310.42
14
014
Clay County
2,022.70
103,505
$
51.17
85
1.041451
$
520,101
107,795
627,897
$
310.42
15
015
Cleburne County
2,597.75
115,945
$
44.63
99
1.041451
$
685,655
120,751
806,407
$
310.42
16
016
Coffee County
2,092.05
136,964
$
65.47
52
1.041451
$
506,783
142,641
649,425
$
310.42
17
017
Colbert County
2,757.65
330,086
$ 119.70
8
1.041451
$
512,275
343,768
856,043
$
310.42
18
018
Conecuh County
1,598.55
146,859
$
21
1.041451
$
343,283
152,946
496,230
$
310.42
19
019
Coosa County
1,181.75
163,854
$ 138.65
3
1.041451
$
196,199
170,646
366,845
$
310.42
20
020
Covington County
3,100.40
231,009
$
74.51
35
1.041451
$
721,857
240,585
962,442
$
310.42
21
021
Crenshaw County
2,175.90
123,493
$
56.75
63
1.041451
$
546,842
128,612
675,454
$
310.42
22
022
Cullman County
9,625.75
549,827
$
57.12
62
1.041451
$ 2,415,456
572,618
2,988,073
$
310.42
23
023
Dale County
2,942.40
153,460
$
52.15
80
1.041451
$
753,573
159,821
913,395
$
310.42
24
024
Dallas County
3,777.40
196,457
$
52.01
82
1.041451
$
967,999
204,600
1,172,599
$
310.42
25
025
Dekalb County
8,688.05
337,697
$
38.87
108
1.041451
$ 2,345,293
351,695
2,696,988
$
310.42
26
026
Elmore County
11,487.90
889,897
$
77.46
33
1.041451
$ 2,639,347
926,784
3,566,131
$
310.42
27
027
Escambia County
4,523.20
304,225
$
67.26
48
1.041451
$ 1,087,279
316,835
1,404,114
$
310.42
28
028
Etowah County
9,296.10
482,083
$
51.86
83
1.041451
$ 2,383,676
502,066
2,885,742
$
310.42
29
029
Fayette County
2,391.45
131,121
$
54.83
69
1.041451
$
605,810
136,556
742,366
$
310.42
30
030
Franklin County
3,188.35
150,042
$
47.06
92
1.041451
$
833,482
156,261
989,744
$
310.42
31
031
Geneva County
2,728.40
125,053
$
45.83
94
1.041451
$
716,727
130,237
846,964
$
310.42
32
032
Greene County
1,272.95
127,108
$
99.85
16
1.041451
$
262,779
132,377
395,155
$
310.42
33
033
Hale County
2,808.75
133,480
$
47.52
91
1.041451
$
732,893
139,013
871,906
$
310.42
34
034
Henry County
2,811.50
144,275
$
51.32
84
1.041451
$
722,505
150,255
872,760
$
310.42
35
035
Houston County
6,479.35
482,607
$
74.48
36
1.041451
$ 1,508,741
502,612
2,011,352
$
310.42
36
036
Jackson County
5,664.05
210,184
$
37.11
112
1.041451
$ 1,539,366
218,896
1,758,263
$
310.42
37
037
Jefferson County
36,058.15
2,500,058
$
69.33
45
1.041451
$ 8,589,663
2,603,688
11,193,351
$
310.42
38
038
Lamar County
2,387.65
121,452
$
50.87
86
1.041451
$
614,700
126,486
741,186
$
310.42
39
039
Lauderdale County
8,587.05
401,764
$
46.79
93
1.041451
$ 2,247,217
418,418
2,665,635
$
310.42
40
040
Lawrence County
5,146.00
478,057
$
92.90
20
1.041451
$ 1,099,574
497,873
1,597,447
$
310.42
41
041
Lee County
9,847.25
530,125
$
53.83
72
1.041451
$ 2,504,733
552,099
3,056,833
$
310.42
42
042
Limestone County
9,016.70
363,450
$
40.31
106
1.041451
$ 2,420,494
378,515
2,799,009
$
310.42
43
043
Lowndes County
1,825.95
103,250
$
56.55
64
1.041451
$
459,291
107,530
566,821
$
310.42
44
044
Macon County
2,587.95
134,926
$
52.14
81
1.041451
$
662,846
140,519
803,364
$
310.42
45
045
Madison County
19,548.00
970,256
$
49.63
89
1.041451
$ 5,057,714
1,010,474
6,068,188
$
310.42
46
046
Marengo County
1,379.40
157,111
$ 113.90
11
1.041451
$
264,577
163,623
428,200
$
310.42
47
047
Marion County
3,524.05
184,529
$
52.36
78
1.041451
$
901,775
192,178
1,093,953
$
310.42
48
048
Marshall County
5,771.65
153,762
$
26.64
128
1.041451
$ 1,631,529
160,136
1,791,664
$
310.42
49
049
Mobile County
60,946.05
4,536,557
$
74.44
37
1.041451
$ 14,194,575
4,724,602
18,919,177
$
310.42
50
050
Monroe County
3,829.60
211,278
$
55.17
68
1.041451
$
968,768
220,036
1,188,804
$
310.42
51
051
Montgomery County
31,388.00
2,508,277
$
79.91
30
1.041451
$ 7,131,372
2,612,248
9,743,620
$
310.42
52
052
Morgan County
7,772.15
750,689
$
96.59
18
1.041451
$ 1,630,864
781,806
2,412,670
$
310.42
53
053
Perry County
1,748.55
78,364
$
44.82
98
1.041451
$
461,181
81,612
542,794
$
310.42
54
054
Pickens County
2,840.25
144,280
$
50.80
87
1.041451
$
731,424
150,261
881,685
$
310.42
55
055
Pike County
2,206.50
122,130
$
55.35
67
1.041451
$
557,760
127,192
684,953
$
310.42
56
056
Randolph County
2,265.90
215,806
$
95.24
19
1.041451
$
478,641
224,751
703,392
$
310.42
57
057
Russell County
3,492.60
183,015
$
52.40
77
1.041451
$
893,589
190,601
1,084,190
$
310.42
58
058
St Clair County
8,604.25
515,372
$
59.90
61
1.041451
$ 2,134,240
536,735
2,670,974
$
310.42
59
059
Shelby County
28,432.20
2,344,452
$
82.46
29
1.041451
$ 6,384,434
2,441,632
8,826,066
$
310.42
60
060
Sumter County
1,963.20
105,280
$
53.63
74
1.041451
$
499,782
109,644
609,426
$
310.42
61
061
Talladega County
7,632.95
678,228
$
88.86
24
1.041451
$ 1,663,117
706,341
2,369,458
$
310.42
62
062
Tallapoosa County
3,001.75
391,642
$ 130.47
4
1.041451
$
523,942
407,876
931,818
$
310.42
63
063
Tuscaloosa County
17,641.46
1,081,132
$
61.28
58
1.041451
$ 4,350,404
1,125,946
5,476,350
$
310.42
64
064
Walker County
8,015.25
537,327
$
67.04
49
1.041451
$ 1,928,534
559,600
2,488,134
$
310.42
65
065
Washington County
3,300.85
401,532
$ 121.65
7
1.041451
$
606,490
418,176
1,024,666
$
310.42
66
066
Wilcox County
1,848.95
125,936
$
68.11
46
1.041451
$
442,804
131,156
573,960
$
310.42
67
067
Winston County
2,626.55
264,474
$ 100.69
15
1.041451
$
539,910
275,437
815,347
$
310.42
91.87
147
Appendix 7-14
for City School Systems for FY 2012-13
#
ID #
System Description
FY 2012
ADM
FY 2013
Yield Per
Mill
Yield Per Rank Yield Number
Mill Per
Per Mill
of Mills
ADM
Per ADM Equalized
State
Allocation
from PSF
Local Match
Total
Capital
Purchase
Total Per
ADM
68
101
Albertville City
4,141.50
187,445
$
45.26
95
1.041451
$ 1,090,410
195,215
1,285,625
$
310.42
69
102
Alexander City
3,179.10
233,389
$
73.41
39
1.041451
$
743,809
243,063
986,872
$
310.42
70
104
Andalusia City
1,712.70
102,951
$
60.11
60
1.041451
$
424,446
107,218
531,665
$
310.42
71
105
Anniston City
2,251.40
263,837
$ 117.19
10
1.041451
$
424,118
274,773
698,891
$
310.42
72
106
Arab City
2,505.05
107,076
$
42.74
102
1.041451
$
666,116
111,514
777,630
$
310.42
73
107
Athens City
3,172.40
232,614
$
73.32
40
1.041451
$
742,536
242,256
984,792
$
310.42
74
109
Attalla City
1,866.55
42,166
$
22.59
131
1.041451
$
535,510
43,914
579,424
$
310.42
75
110
Auburn City
6,982.85
754,987
$ 108.12
13
1.041451
$ 1,381,369
786,282
2,167,651
$
310.42
76
113
Bessemer City
4,411.30
277,113
$
62.82
54
1.041451
$ 1,080,778
288,600
1,369,378
$
310.42
77
114
Birmingham City
25,005.60
2,601,409
$ 104.03
14
1.041451
$ 5,053,123
2,709,240
7,762,363
$
310.42
78
115
Boaz City
2,154.10
84,435
$
39.20
107
1.041451
$
580,752
87,935
668,686
$
310.42
79
116
Brewton City
1,193.40
66,095
$
55.38
66
1.041451
$
301,626
68,835
370,461
$
310.42
80
125
Cullman City
3,038.90
272,378
$
89.63
23
1.041451
$
659,682
283,668
943,351
$
310.42
81
126
Daleville City
1,201.50
54,355
$
45.24
96
1.041451
$
316,368
56,608
372,976
$
310.42
82
127
Decatur City
8,516.40
649,402
$
76.25
34
1.041451
$ 1,967,383
676,320
2,643,703
$
310.42
83
128
Demopolis City
2,332.40
80,566
$
34.54
117
1.041451
$
640,130
83,906
724,035
$
310.42
84
130
Dothan City
9,468.35
824,020
$
87.03
26
1.041451
$ 2,081,036
858,176
2,939,213
$
310.42
85
131
Elba City
738.10
27,110
$
36.73
114
1.041451
$
200,891
28,234
229,125
$
310.42
86
132
Enterprise City
6,587.10
254,549
$
38.64
109
1.041451
$ 1,779,700
265,100
2,044,800
$
310.42
87
133
Eufaula City
2,625.35
116,554
$
44.40
100
1.041451
$
693,589
121,385
814,974
$
310.42
88
137
Fairfield City
1,845.10
57,330
$
31.07
123
1.041451
$
513,059
59,706
572,765
$
310.42
89
141
Florence City
4,325.25
344,798
$
79.72
31
1.041451
$
983,575
359,090
1,342,666
$
310.42
90
143
Fort Payne City
3,026.55
162,537
$
53.70
73
1.041451
$
770,242
169,274
939,517
$
310.42
91
144
Gadsden City
5,455.35
387,852
$
71.10
43
1.041451
$ 1,289,548
403,929
1,693,477
$
310.42
92
146
Geneva City
1,245.65
38,367
$
30.80
124
1.041451
$
346,724
39,957
386,681
$
310.42
93
154
Guntersville City
1,933.30
128,888
$
66.67
50
1.041451
$
465,914
134,231
600,145
$
310.42
94
155
Haleyville City
1,705.90
32,436
$
19.01
132
1.041451
$
495,773
33,781
529,554
$
310.42
95
156
Hartselle City
3,132.95
105,109
$
33.55
118
1.041451
$
863,080
109,466
972,546
$
310.42
96
157
Homewood City
3,590.65
535,132
$ 149.03
1
1.041451
$
557,314
557,314
1,114,628
$
310.42
97
158
Hoover City
13,409.75
1,485,885
$ 110.81
12
1.041451
$ 2,615,245
1,547,476
4,162,722
$
310.42
98
159
Huntsville City
22,811.10
1,904,202
$
83.48
27
1.041451
$ 5,098,003
1,983,133
7,081,136
$
310.42
99
162
Jacksonville City
1,626.25
88,830
$
54.62
71
1.041451
$
412,317
92,512
504,829
$
310.42
100
163
Jasper City
2,700.40
176,729
$
65.45
53
1.041451
$
654,217
184,055
838,272
$
310.42
101
165
Lanett City
829.05
41,490
$
50.05
88
1.041451
$
214,148
43,210
257,358
$
310.42
102
167
Leeds City
1,641.05
117,832
$
71.80
42
1.041451
$
386,707
122,716
509,423
$
310.42
103
168
Linden City
484.20
14,453
$
29.85
126
1.041451
$
135,256
15,052
150,308
$
310.42
104
169
Madison City
9,018.75
557,740
$
61.84
56
1.041451
$ 2,218,787
580,859
2,799,645
$
310.42
105
171
Midfield City
1,334.90
36,057
$
27.01
127
1.041451
$
376,835
37,552
414,386
$
310.42
106
175
Mountain Brook City
4,490.00
551,644
$ 122.86
5
1.041451
$
819,298
574,510
1,393,808
$
310.42
107
176
Muscle Shoals City
2,858.85
156,739
$
54.83
70
1.041451
$
724,223
163,236
887,458
$
310.42
108
178
Oneonta City
1,494.45
71,899
$
48.11
90
1.041451
$
389,035
74,879
463,915
$
310.42
109
179
Opelika City
4,260.00
374,773
$
87.97
25
1.041451
$
932,103
390,308
1,322,410
$
310.42
110
180
Opp City
1,357.45
42,780
$
31.51
121
1.041451
$
376,833
44,553
421,386
$
310.42
111
181
Oxford City
4,101.25
271,975
$
66.32
51
1.041451
$
989,882
283,249
1,273,131
$
310.42
112
182
Ozark City
2,383.80
91,788
$
38.50
110
1.041451
$
644,398
95,593
739,991
$
310.42
113
183
Pell City
4,152.60
250,726
$
60.38
59
1.041451
$ 1,027,952
261,119
1,289,071
$
310.42
114
184
Phenix City
6,758.95
237,604
$
35.15
116
1.041451
$ 1,850,694
247,453
2,098,147
$
310.42
115
185
Piedmont City
1,164.85
43,463
$
37.31
111
1.041451
$
316,334
45,265
361,599
$
310.42
116
187
Saraland City
2,228.85
154,602
$
69.36
44
1.041451
$
530,880
161,010
691,891
$
310.42
117
188
Roanoke City
1,534.95
40,259
$
26.23
130
1.041451
$
434,559
41,928
476,487
$
310.42
118
189
Russellville City
2,471.70
65,423
$
26.47
129
1.041451
$
699,143
68,135
767,277
$
310.42
119
190
Scottsboro City
2,700.95
144,245
$
53.41
75
1.041451
$
688,218
150,224
838,442
$
310.42
120
191
Selma City
3,809.70
138,045
$
36.24
115
1.041451
$ 1,038,859
143,767
1,182,626
$
310.42
121
192
Sheffield City
1,046.40
47,091
$
45.00
97
1.041451
$
275,786
49,043
324,829
$
310.42
122
193
Sylacauga City
2,390.95
102,868
$
43.02
101
1.041451
$
635,079
107,132
742,211
$
310.42
123
194
Talladega City
2,375.50
74,853
$
31.51
122
1.041451
$
659,459
77,956
737,415
$
310.42
124
195
Tallassee City
1,899.35
57,451
$
30.25
125
1.041451
$
529,773
59,832
589,606
$
310.42
125
197
Tarrant City
1,200.95
67,740
$
56.41
65
1.041451
$
302,257
70,548
372,805
$
310.42
126
198
Thomasville City
1,479.25
46,829
$
31.66
120
1.041451
$
410,426
48,770
459,196
$
310.42
127
199
Troy City
2,076.15
164,015
$
79.00
32
1.041451
$
473,675
170,814
644,489
$
310.42
128
200
Tuscaloosa City
9,937.30
1,174,546
9
1.041451
$ 1,861,554
1,223,232
3,084,786
$
310.42
129
201
Tuscumbia City
1,518.75
55,824
$
36.76
113
1.041451
$
413,320
58,138
471,458
$
310.42
130
202
Vestavia Hills City
6,445.70
587,895
$
91.21
22
1.041451
$ 1,388,643
612,264
2,000,906
$
310.42
131
204
Winfield City
1,259.50
41,733
$
33.13
119
1.041451
$
347,517
43,463
390,980
$
310.42
132
205
Trussville City
4,187.90
309,615
$
73.93
1.041451
$
977,580
322,449
1,300,029
$
310.42
741,057.86 53,130,297 $
71.70
38
n/a
1.041451
174,710,282
230,042,883
$
310.42
TOTAL
$ 118.20
148
55,332,601
Appendix 7-15
Unrestricted Local Tax Revenues
per ADM for County School Systems for FY 2012-13
FY 2013 LEA
FY 2013
Capital
Required
Purchase
Local Effort
Match
10.000000
1.041451
11.041451
6,777,528
6,141,330
636,198
43,537,404
39,431,760
4,105,644
FY 2013
Required
Equivalent
Mills
11.041451
11.041451
11.041451
$101,338,513
$57,801,109
$2,041.06
18
104,574
1,109,994
11.041451
$1,487,994
$378,000
$373.24
123
1,487,100
153,255
1,640,355
11.041451
$3,795,000
$2,154,645
$586.55
107
3,399,800
350,621
3,750,421
11.041451
$6,455,300
$2,704,879
$321.85
125
1,538.30
811,160
85,036
896,196
11.041451
$1,710,196
$814,000
$529.16
112
Butler County
3,278.80
2,016,860
212,028
2,228,888
11.041451
$4,186,860
$1,957,972
$597.16
105
008
Calhoun County
9,211.10
3,807,000
393,897
4,200,897
11.041451
$13,705,397
$9,504,500
$1,031.85
75
9
009
Chambers County
3,848.75
2,603,900
272,970
2,876,870
11.041451
$5,737,865
$2,860,995
$743.36
96
10
010
Cherokee County
4,065.75
2,977,130
309,564
3,286,694
11.041451
$8,044,650
$4,757,956
$1,170.25
58
11
011
Chilton County
7,651.90
3,995,260
415,011
4,410,271
11.041451
$7,675,021
$3,264,750
$426.66
119
12
012
Choctaw County
1,770.75
2,171,760
227,169
2,398,929
11.041451
$4,241,566
$1,842,637
$1,040.60
72
13
013
Clarke County
3,209.60
2,671,640
277,854
2,949,494
11.041451
$4,258,640
$1,309,146
$407.88
122
14
014
Clay County
2,022.70
1,035,050
107,594
1,142,644
11.041451
$1,740,744
$598,100
$295.69
128
15
015
Cleburne County
2,597.75
1,159,450
121,926
1,281,376
11.041451
$2,578,350
$1,296,974
$499.27
113
16
016
Coffee County
2,092.05
1,369,640
141,831
1,511,471
11.041451
$3,159,838
$1,648,367
$787.92
92
17
017
Colbert County
2,757.65
3,300,860
345,150
3,646,010
11.041451
$9,266,031
$5,620,021
$2,037.97
19
18
018
Conecuh County
1,598.55
1,468,590
153,391
1,621,981
11.041451
$4,382,221
$2,760,240
$1,726.71
27
19
019
Coosa County
1,181.75
1,638,540
171,328
1,809,868
11.041451
$2,186,249
$376,381
$318.49
126
20
020
Covington County
3,100.40
2,310,090
242,530
2,552,620
11.041451
$4,254,030
$1,701,410
$548.77
111
21
021
Crenshaw County
2,175.90
1,234,930
129,360
1,364,290
11.041451
$2,408,272
$1,043,982
$479.79
117
22
022
Cullman County
9,625.75
5,498,270
572,264
6,070,534
11.041451
$14,659,000
$8,588,466
$892.24
86
23
023
Dale County
2,942.40
1,534,600
159,585
1,694,185
11.041451
$4,347,376
$2,653,191
$901.71
84
24
024
Dallas County
3,777.40
1,964,570
204,872
2,169,442
11.041451
$2,927,739
$758,297
$200.75
131
N
LEA
Code
1
001
Number of Mills
Autauga County
2
002
Baldwin County
28,319.10
3
003
Barbour County
1,012.75
1,005,420
4
004
Bibb County
3,673.40
5
005
Blount County
8,404.10
6
006
Bullock County
7
007
8
System Name
FY 2012
ADM
n/a
9,838.15
FY 2013 LEA
Chargeback
FY 2013
Unrestricted
Local Taxation
Per ADM
n/a
n/a
$4,741,802
$481.98
Total All Local
FY 2013
Tax-Based
Unrestricted
Revenues Local Taxation
n/a
$11,519,330
Rank
n/a
116
25
025
DeKalb County
8,688.05
3,376,970
353,406
3,730,376
11.041451
$8,870,826
$5,140,450
$591.67
106
26
026
Elmore County
11,487.90
8,898,970
922,611
9,821,581
11.041451
$16,683,067
$6,861,486
$597.28
104
27
027
Escambia County
4,523.20
3,042,250
316,088
3,358,338
11.041451
$8,601,750
$5,243,412
$1,159.23
59
28
028
Etowah County
9,296.10
4,820,830
504,187
5,325,017
11.041451
$9,966,254
$4,641,237
$499.27
114
29
029
Fayette County
2,391.45
1,311,210
137,186
1,448,396
11.041451
$2,965,496
$1,517,100
$634.38
102
30
030
Franklin County
3,188.35
1,500,420
156,297
1,656,717
11.041451
$4,937,817
$3,281,100
$1,029.09
76
31
031
Geneva County
2,728.40
1,250,530
130,904
1,381,434
11.041451
$1,941,530
$560,096
$205.28
130
32
032
Greene County
1,272.95
1,271,080
132,770
1,403,850
11.041451
$2,757,600
$1,353,750
$1,063.47
70
33
033
Hale County
2,808.75
1,334,800
140,618
1,475,418
11.041451
$3,374,100
$1,898,682
$675.99
100
34
034
Henry County
2,811.50
1,442,750
149,553
1,592,303
11.041451
$2,949,803
$1,357,500
$482.84
115
35
035
Houston County
6,479.35
4,826,070
500,092
5,326,162
11.041451
$9,854,662
$4,528,500
$698.91
99
36
036
Jackson County
5,664.05
2,101,840
218,583
2,320,423
11.041451
$9,844,423
$7,524,000
$1,328.38
46
37
037
Jefferson County
36,058.15
25,000,580
2,595,013
27,595,593
11.041451
$82,385,739
$54,790,146
$1,519.49
37
38
038
Lamar County
2,387.65
1,214,520
127,007
1,341,527
11.041451
$2,319,427
$977,900
$409.57
121
39
039
Lauderdale County
8,587.05
4,017,640
420,948
4,438,588
11.041451
$13,503,832
$9,065,244
$1,055.69
71
40
040
Lawrence County
5,146.00
4,780,570
499,160
5,279,730
11.041451
$10,616,570
$5,336,840
$1,037.09
74
41
041
Lee County
9,847.25
5,301,250
554,620
5,855,870
11.041451
$21,905,350
$16,049,480
$1,629.84
33
42
042
Limestone County
9,016.70
3,634,500
376,179
4,010,679
11.041451
$16,896,500
$12,885,821
$1,429.11
40
43
043
Lowndes County
1,825.95
1,032,500
108,555
1,141,055
11.041451
$3,236,975
$2,095,920
$1,147.85
60
44
044
Macon County
2,587.95
1,349,260
140,361
1,489,621
11.041451
$4,328,410
$2,838,789
$1,096.93
63
45
045
Madison County
19,548.00
9,702,560
1,019,435
10,721,995
11.041451
$40,759,560
$30,037,565
$1,536.61
35
46
046
Marengo County
1,379.40
1,571,110
164,014
1,735,124
11.041451
$1,991,260
$256,136
$185.69
132
124
47
047
Marion County
3,524.05
1,845,290
191,132
2,036,422
11.041451
$3,339,013
$1,302,591
$369.63
48
048
Marshall County
5,771.65
1,537,620
162,536
1,700,156
11.041451
$7,692,035
$5,991,879
$1,038.16
73
49
049
Mobile County
60,946.05
45,365,570
4,703,968
50,069,538
11.041451
$142,204,792
$92,135,254
$1,511.75
38
50
050
Monroe County
51
051
Montgomery County
52
052
53
053
3,829.60
2,112,780
219,686
2,332,466
11.041451
$4,559,000
$2,226,534
$581.40
108
31,388.00
25,082,770
2,619,031
27,701,801
11.041451
$61,686,682
$33,984,881
$1,082.73
67
Morgan County
7,772.15
7,506,890
786,321
8,293,211
11.041451
$22,795,321
$14,502,110
$1,865.91
24
Perry County
1,748.55
783,640
82,069
865,709
11.041451
$2,146,459
$1,280,750
$732.46
97
$297.09
127
54
054
Pickens County
2,840.25
1,442,800
151,082
1,593,882
11.041451
$2,437,695
$843,813
55
055
Pike County
2,206.50
1,221,300
126,577
1,347,877
11.041451
$4,386,239
$3,038,362
56
056
Randolph County
2,265.90
2,158,060
224,518
2,382,578
11.041451
$3,378,891
$996,313
57
057
Russell County
3,492.60
1,830,150
189,426
2,019,576
11.041451
$5,803,076
58
058
Saint Clair County
8,604.25
5,153,720
538,457
5,692,177
11.041451
$11,830,920
59
059
Shelby County
28,432.20
23,444,520
2,431,708
25,876,228
11.041451
60
060
Sumter County
1,963.20
1,052,800
110,572
1,163,372
61
061
Talladega County
7,632.95
6,782,280
708,548
62
062
Tallapoosa County
3,001.75
3,916,420
407,010
63
063
Tuscaloosa County
17,641.46
10,811,320
64
064
Walker County
8,015.25
5,373,270
65
065
Washington County
3,300.85
66
066
Wilcox County
67
067
Winston County
$1,377.00
41
$439.70
118
$3,783,500
$1,083.29
66
$6,138,743
$713.45
98
$83,347,576
$57,471,348
$2,021.35
20
11.041451
$3,847,495
$2,684,123
$1,367.22
42
7,490,828
11.041451
$17,234,221
$9,743,393
$1,276.49
51
4,323,430
11.041451
$6,995,130
$2,671,700
$890.05
87
1,122,410
11,933,730
11.041451
$42,335,044
$30,401,314
$1,723.29
28
560,117
5,933,387
11.041451
$16,380,000
$10,446,613
$1,303.34
48
4,015,320
420,023
4,435,343
11.041451
$5,143,319
$707,976
$214.48
129
1,848.95
1,259,360
131,136
1,390,496
11.041451
$2,812,360
$1,421,864
$769.01
93
2,626.55
2,644,740
276,690
2,921,430
11.041451
$4,406,080
$1,484,650
$565.25
110
149
Appendix 7-16
Unrestricted Local Tax Revenues
per ADM for City School Systems for FY 2012-13
FY 2013 LEA
FY 2013
Capital
Required
Purchase
Local Effort
Match
10.000000
1.041451
11.041451
2,068,833
1,874,450
194,383
2,575,945
2,333,890
242,055
FY 2013
Required
Equivalent
Mills
11.041451
11.041451
n/a
$3,835,333
FY 2013
Unrestricted
Local Taxation
Per ADM
n/a
n/a
$1,766,500
$426.54
107,181
1,136,691
11.041451
$5,177,260
$2,601,315
$818.26
91
11.041451
$2,593,191
$1,456,500
$850.41
2,638,370
274,742
89
2,913,112
11.041451
$5,418,945
$2,505,833
$1,113.01
2,505.05
1,070,760
61
112,350
1,183,110
11.041451
$3,599,560
$2,416,450
$964.63
Athens City
3,172.40
80
2,326,140
241,545
2,567,685
11.041451
$10,281,243
$7,713,558
$2,431.46
109
Attalla City
13
1,866.55
421,660
44,777
466,437
11.041451
$1,655,860
$1,189,423
$637.23
101
75
110
76
113
Auburn City
6,982.85
7,549,870
786,581
8,336,451
11.041451
$32,791,755
$24,455,304
$3,502.20
6
Bessemer City
4,411.30
2,771,130
289,864
3,060,994
11.041451
$7,768,355
$4,707,361
$1,067.11
69
77
114
Birmingham City
78
115
Boaz City
25,005.60
26,014,090
2,712,425
28,726,515
11.041451
$76,279,061
$47,552,546
$1,901.68
23
2,154.10
844,350
87,623
931,973
11.041451
$4,585,118
$3,653,145
$1,695.90
79
116
31
Brewton City
1,193.40
660,950
68,460
729,410
11.041451
$3,486,750
$2,757,340
$2,310.49
15
80
81
125
Cullman City
3,038.90
2,723,780
285,263
3,009,043
11.041451
$8,292,343
$5,283,300
$1,738.56
26
126
Daleville City
1,201.50
543,550
56,393
599,943
11.041451
$1,678,950
$1,079,007
$898.05
85
82
127
Decatur City
8,516.40
6,494,020
675,082
7,169,102
11.041451
$34,440,876
$27,271,774
$3,202.27
8
83
128
Demopolis City
2,332.40
805,660
85,145
890,805
11.041451
$2,671,403
$1,780,598
$763.42
94
84
130
Dothan City
9,468.35
8,240,200
859,173
9,099,373
11.041451
$18,129,286
$9,029,913
$953.69
82
85
131
Elba City
738.10
271,100
28,484
299,584
11.041451
$1,089,884
$790,300
$1,070.72
68
86
132
Enterprise City
6,587.10
2,545,490
267,945
2,813,435
11.041451
$10,007,535
$7,194,100
$1,092.15
64
87
133
Eufaula City
2,625.35
1,165,540
120,483
1,286,023
11.041451
$4,748,573
$3,462,550
$1,318.89
47
88
137
Fairfield City
1,845.10
573,300
59,658
632,958
11.041451
$2,988,961
$2,356,003
$1,276.90
50
89
141
Florence City
4,325.25
3,447,980
360,901
3,808,881
11.041451
$15,671,881
$11,863,000
$2,742.73
10
90
143
Fort Payne City
3,026.55
1,625,370
170,462
1,795,832
11.041451
$4,842,670
$3,046,838
$1,006.70
78
91
144
Gadsden City
5,455.35
3,878,520
403,988
4,282,508
11.041451
$9,858,280
$5,575,772
$1,022.07
77
92
146
Geneva City
1,245.65
383,670
40,276
423,946
11.041451
$1,552,946
$1,129,000
$906.35
83
93
154
Guntersville City
1,933.30
1,288,880
135,102
1,423,982
11.041451
$4,614,882
$3,190,900
$1,650.49
32
94
155
Haleyville City
1,705.90
324,360
33,806
358,166
11.041451
$2,852,266
$2,494,100
$1,462.04
39
95
156
Hartselle City
3,132.95
1,051,090
111,101
1,162,191
11.041451
$22,282,046
$21,119,855
$6,741.20
1
96
157
Homewood City
3,590.65
5,351,320
558,016
5,909,336
11.041451
$25,480,399
$19,571,063
$5,450.56
2
97
158
Hoover City
13,409.75
14,858,850
1,552,497
16,411,347
11.041451
$64,623,912
$48,212,565
$3,595.34
5
98
159
Huntsville City
22,811.10
19,042,020
1,974,747
21,016,767
11.041451
$86,937,168
$65,920,401
$2,889.84
9
99
162
Jacksonville City
1,626.25
888,300
93,290
981,590
11.041451
$2,906,390
$1,924,800
$1,183.58
55
100
163
Jasper City
2,700.40
1,767,290
183,075
1,950,365
11.041451
$7,483,236
$5,532,871
$2,048.91
17
101
165
Lanett City
829.05
414,900
43,235
458,135
11.041451
$1,144,935
$686,800
$828.42
90
102
167
Leeds City
1,641.05
1,178,320
123,237
1,301,557
11.041451
$3,847,776
$2,546,219
$1,551.58
34
103
168
Linden City
484.20
144,530
15,151
159,681
11.041451
$575,205
$415,524
104
169
Madison City
9,018.75
5,577,400
583,210
6,160,610
11.041451
$28,933,166
$22,772,556
105
171
Midfield City
1,334.90
360,570
37,592
398,162
11.041451
$1,684,972
106
175
Mountain Brook City
4,490.00
5,516,440
576,021
6,092,461
11.041451
$27,463,568
107
176
Muscle Shoals City
2,858.85
1,567,390
163,999
1,731,389
11.041451
$6,897,959
$5,166,570
108
178
Oneonta City
1,494.45
718,990
74,819
793,809
11.041451
$1,712,709
$918,900
109
179
Opelika City
4,260.00
3,747,730
391,002
4,138,732
11.041451
$14,070,655
$9,931,923
$2,331.44
14
110
180
Opp City
1,357.45
427,800
45,307
473,107
11.041451
$2,098,600
$1,625,493
$1,197.46
53
111
181
Oxford City
4,101.25
2,719,750
282,324
3,002,074
11.041451
$13,698,424
$10,696,350
$2,608.07
11
112
182
Ozark City
2,383.80
917,880
96,966
1,014,846
11.041451
$4,092,650
$3,077,804
$1,291.13
49
113
183
Pell City
4,152.60
2,507,260
259,871
2,767,131
11.041451
$7,325,800
$4,558,669
$1,097.79
62
114
184
Phenix City
6,758.95
2,376,040
246,737
2,622,777
11.041451
$11,824,469
$9,201,692
$1,361.41
43
115
185
Piedmont City
1,164.85
434,630
44,953
479,583
11.041451
$1,635,483
$1,155,900
$992.32
79
116
187
Saraland City
2,228.85
1,546,020
160,405
1,706,425
11.041451
$6,195,809
$4,489,384
$2,014.22
21
117
188
Roanoke City
1,534.95
402,590
41,625
444,215
11.041451
$1,599,040
$1,154,825
$752.35
95
118
189
Russellville City
2,471.70
654,230
67,028
721,258
11.041451
$4,924,778
$4,203,520
$1,700.66
30
119
190
Scottsboro City
2,700.95
1,442,450
149,307
1,591,757
11.041451
$5,733,507
$4,141,750
$1,533.44
36
120
191
Selma City
3,809.70
1,380,450
143,048
1,523,498
11.041451
$3,702,450
$2,178,952
$571.95
109
121
192
Sheffield City
1,046.40
470,910
49,113
520,023
11.041451
$2,727,023
$2,207,000
$2,109.14
16
122
193
Sylacauga City
2,390.95
1,028,680
107,232
1,135,912
11.041451
$3,960,283
$2,824,371
$1,181.28
56
123
194
Talladega City
2,375.50
748,530
79,285
827,815
11.041451
$3,410,615
$2,582,800
$1,087.27
65
124
195
Tallassee City
1,899.35
574,510
59,431
633,941
11.041451
$2,863,941
$2,230,000
$1,174.09
57
125
197
Tarrant City
1,200.95
677,400
70,146
747,546
11.041451
$2,375,651
$1,628,105
$1,355.68
44
126
198
Thomasville City
1,479.25
468,290
49,372
517,662
11.041451
$2,312,590
$1,794,928
$1,213.40
52
127
199
Troy City
2,076.15
1,640,150
171,070
1,811,220
11.041451
$4,602,800
$2,791,580
$1,344.59
45
128
200
Tuscaloosa City
9,937.30
11,745,460
1,223,031
12,968,491
11.041451
$45,666,350
$32,697,859
$3,290.42
7
129
201
Tuscumbia City
1,518.75
558,240
58,610
616,850
11.041451
$3,210,059
$2,593,209
$1,707.46
29
130
202
Vestavia Hills City
6,445.70
5,878,950
611,785
6,490,735
11.041451
$31,023,583
$24,532,848
$3,806.08
4
131
204
Winfield City
1,259.50
417,330
43,351
460,681
11.041451
$1,966,341
$1,505,660
$1,195.44
54
132
205
Trussville City
4,187.90
3,096,150
531,302,970
323,233
55,332,625
3,419,383
11.041451
$11,620,542
$8,201,159
$1,958.30
22
586,635,595
11.041451
$1,720,223,377 $1,133,587,782
$1,529.69
n/a
N
LEA
Code
68
101
Number of Mills
Albertville City
n/a
4,141.50
69
102
Alexander City
3,179.10
70
104
Andalusia City
1,712.70
1,029,510
71
105
Anniston City
2,251.40
72
106
Arab City
73
107
74
System Name
Total
FY 2012
ADM
741,057.86
FY 2013 LEA
Chargeback
150
Total All Local
FY 2013
Tax-Based
Unrestricted
Revenues Local Taxation
Rank
n/a
120
$858.17
88
$2,525.02
12
$1,286,810
$963.97
81
$21,371,107
$4,759.71
3
$1,807.22
25
$614.88
103
Appendix 7-17
Gardendale Elementary School: 037-0300
Jefferson County SAFE Report
Site Summary Reported as of November 5, 2012
151
Appendix 7-18
Building Detail Reported as of November 5, 2012
152
153
154
155
156
Appendix 7-19
Snow Rogers Elementary School: Site 037-0840
157
Appendix 7-20
158
159
160
Appendix 7-21
Bragg Middle School: Site 037-0095
161
Appendix 7-22
162
163
Appendix 7-23
Gardendale High School: Site 037-0310
164
Appendix 7-24
165
166
167
Appendix 7-25
Mount Olive Elementary School: Site 037-0630
168
Appendix 7-26
169
170
Appendix 7-27
Gardendale Elementary School: 037-0300 (Grades K-05)
Attachment to Exhibit P-II for FY 2012-13 Budget
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO
FY 2013 BUDGET
Alabam a State Departm ent of Education
Attachm ent to Exhibit P-II
LEA
Jefferson County
037
As required by Section 16-13-140,
Code of Alabama 1975
NAME OF SCHOOL OR COST CENTER Gardendale Elementary School - 0300
GRADE LEVELS K-5
I. FOUNDATION PROGRAM OPERATING RESOURCE
EARNED BY SCHOOL (STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS)
(To be completed by SDE)
899.25
ADM (Prior year used for allocation purposes)
Earned Units
Teachers
Principals
Counselors
Librarians
Career Tech Director
Career Tech Counselors
* Additional Units
Total Units
55.28
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
60.28
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Other Current Expenses
Classroom Instructional Support
Teacher Materials and Supplies
Technology
Library Enhancement
Common Purchases
Textbooks
Total Foundation Program
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
II. PROJECTED ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL
(To be completed by LEA)
2,813,101
1,044,076
0
0
18,084
0
0
0
0
28,191
3,903,452
810
III. PROJECTED EMPLOYEES BY SCHOOL / COST CENTER
NUMBER BY
** Level of Degree
Type
Teachers
Librarians
Counselors
Administrators
Total
BS
24
MS
6Y DO
32.6 0.5
1
1 0.5
1
1
IV. LOCAL SCHOOL FUNDS BUDGETED
TOTAL
EMPLOYEES
57.10
1.00
1.50
2.00
Source of Funds
ND
State Earned
55.28
1.00
1.50
2.00
Other State
0.70
59.78
0.70
PUBLIC
NON- PUBLIC
Federal
Local
1.12
8.00
8.00
17.00
18.12
$ 121,290
* For secondary school types only, an additional unit is earned for each 250 students above 1249.
This unit may be used in the Assistant Principal, Counselor, or Library Media are as best meets the needs of the school.
** BS – Bachelor of Science
MS – Master of Science
6Y – 6-Year
DO – Doctorate
ND – Bachelor of Science Non-Degree
171
25.00
86.60
$
121,290
Appendix 7-28
FY 2013 BUDGET
LEA Jefferson County
037
NAME OF SCHOOL OR COST CENTER Snow Rogers Elementary School - 0840
GRADE LEVELS K-5
182.75
Earned Units
Teachers
Principals
Counselors
Librarians
* Additional Units
Total Units
11.26
1.00
0.50
0.50
13.26
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Technology
Library Enhancement
Common Purchases
Textbooks
$ 653,214
$ 235,812
$
0
$
0
$
3,978
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
5,729
$ 898,733
185
NUMBER BY
** Level of Degree
Type
Teachers
Librarians
Counselors
Administrators
Total
BS
8
MS 6Y DO
7.7
1
0.5
1
TOTAL
EMPLOYEES
15.70
1.00
0.50
1.00
Source of Funds
ND
State Earned
11.26
0.50
0.50
1.00
Other State
1.00
13.26
1.00
PUBLIC
NON- PUBLIC
$
32,700 $
Federal
2.50
Local
0.94
0.50
3.00
5.50
6.00
7.44
300
6Y – 6-Year
DO – Doctorate
172
9.00
27.20
$
33,000
Appendix 7-29
Bragg Middle School: Site 037-0095 (Grades 06-08)
FY 2013 BUDGET
LEA
Jefferson County
037
NAME OF SCHOOL OR COST CENTER Bragg Middle School - 0095
GRADE LEVELS 6-8
890.25
Earned Units
Teachers
Principals
Counselors
Librarians
* Additional Units
Total Units
42.68
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.50
48.18
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Technology
Library Enhancement
Common Purchases
Textbooks
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,307,074
844,970
0
0
14,454
0
0
0
0
27,909
3,194,407
900
NUMBER BY
** Level of Degree
Type
Teachers
Librarians
Counselors
Administrators
Total
BS
15.5
MS 6Y
24.2
5
1
2
1
2
DO ND
1
1.00
TOTAL
EMPLOYEES
45.70
1.00
2.00
3.00
11.00
13.02
19.00
70.70
Source of Funds
State Earned
42.68
1.00
2.00
2.00
Other State
8.00
10.00
47.68
PUBLIC
Federal
2.00
NON- PUBLIC
$ 242,575 $
35,650
6Y – 6-Year
DO – Doctorate
173
Local
1.02
$
278,225
Appendix 7-30
Gardendale High School: Site 037-0310 (Grades 09-12)
FY 2013 BUDGET
LEA
Jefferson County
037
NAME OF SCHOOL OR COST CENTER
GRADE LEVELS
Gardendale High School - 0310
9-12
1,065.95
Earned Units
Teachers
Principals
Counselors
Librarians
* Additional Units
Total Units
57.78
1.00
2.00
2.50
2.50
65.78
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Technology
Library Enhancement
Common Purchases
Textbooks
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,027,846
1,131,853
0
0
19,734
0
0
0
0
33,418
4,212,851
1161
NUMBER BY
** Level of Degree
Type
Teachers
Librarians
Counselors
Administrators
Total
BS
26
MS
6Y
30.9
2
3
3
1
0.50
2.00
TOTAL
EMPLOYEES
59.65
2.00
3.00
5.00
20.00
23.37
27.00
96.65
Source of Funds
DO
ND State Earned
57.78
2.75
2.00
2.50
3.00
1
Other State
7.00
8.00
65.28
PUBLIC
Federal
1.00
NON- PUBLIC
$ 269,705 $
109,730
6Y – 6-Year
DO – Doctorate
174
Local
0.87
$
379,435
Appendix 7-31
Mount Olive Elementary School: Site 037-0630 (Grades K-05)
FY 2013 BUDGET
LEA
Jefferson County
037
NAME OF SCHOOL OR COST CENTER Mount Olive Elementary School - 0630
GRADE LEVELS K-5
406.50
Earned Units
Teachers
Principals
Counselors
Librarians
* Additional Units
Total Units
24.85
1.00
0.50
1.00
27.35
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Technology
Library Enhancement
Common Purchases
Textbooks
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,310,437
479,800
0
0
8,205
0
0
0
0
12,744
1,811,186
404
NUMBER BY
Type
Teachers
Librarians
Counselors
Administrators
Total
BS
9
MS
6Y DO
16.6
2
1
0.5
1
TOTAL
EMPLOYEES
27.60
1.00
0.50
1.00
Source of Funds
** Level of Degree
ND
State Earned
24.85
1.00
0.50
1.00
Other State
0.84
27.35
0.84
PUBLIC
NON- PUBLIC
$
46,780 $
Federal
1.00
Local
0.91
5.00
6.00
7.00
7.91
2,840
6Y – 6-Year
DO – Doctorate
175
12.00
42.10
$
49,620
Appendix 7-32
Countywide Foundation Program Cost Ratio
for the School Systems of Jefferson County for FY 2012-13
176
APPENDIX 7-33
Regarding Formation of a City School System
177
APPENDIX 7-33 (continued)
178
APPENDIX 7-33 (continued)
179
Appendix 7-34
Student Transportation Equipment Serving the School Sites of Gardendale
Jefferson County Transportation Equipment Serving School Sites in the City of Gardendale
Bus Identification
Count
School Served
Year
Chassis Type Body Type
Number
1
2005-047
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
2
2005-048
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
3
2005-050
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
4
2005-051
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
5
2005-054
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
6
2005-056
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
7
2005-057
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
8
2005-061
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
9
2005-063
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
10
2005-075
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
11
2005-089
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
12
2007-007
2007 SE
IHC
IHC
13
2008-033
2008 SE
IHC
IHC
14
2009-030
2009
Freightliner
Thomas
15
2010-013
2010
Freightliner
Thomas
16
2013-014
2010
Freightliner
Thomas
17
2012-010
2102 SE
Freightliner
Thomas
18
2012-026
2012
Freightliner
Thomas
19
2013-002
2013 SE
Freightliner
Thomas
20
2013-005
2013
Freightliner
Thomas
21
2005-058
2005
Freightliner
Thomas
22
2001-164
Snow Rogers (NCLB)
2001
Freightliner
Blue Bird
23
24
25
2010-011
2010-012
2009-009
180
2010
2010
2009 SE
Freightliner
Freightliner
Blue Bird
Thomas
Thomas
Blue Bird
Appendix 7-35
Jefferson County School System APSCA Pooled Purchase Bond Issue 1999-D
Refunded in 2009-B Debt to be Assumed by Proposed Gardendale City School System
APSCA Pooled Purchase Bond Issue 1999-D Refunded in 2009-B
To Be Assumed by Proposed Gardendale City School System
Date
5/1/2012
11/1/2012
5/1/2013
11/1/2013
5/1/2014
11/1/2014
5/1/2015
11/1/2015
5/1/2016
11/1/2016
5/1/2017
11/1/2017
5/1/2018
11/1/2018
5/1/2019
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Principal
Amount
104,685.46
107,557.81
113,007.51
118,286.42
124,240.72
130,497.79
138,183.26
836,458.97
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Due as of
April 1, 2013
$
$
20,620.36
$
125,305.82
$
18,003.22
$
125,561.03
$
15,314.28
$
128,321.79
$
12,780.20
$
131,066.63
$
9,823.04
$
134,063.77
$
6,717.03
$
137,214.81
$
3,454.58
Interest
20,620.36
20,620.36
18,003.22
18,003.22
15,314.28
15,314.28
12,780.20
12,780.20
9,823.04
9,823.04
6,717.03
6,717.03
3,454.58
3,454.58 $ 141,637.84
152,805.07 $
989,264.04
181
Fiscal Year
Total
$
145,926.18
$
143,564.25
$
143,636.06
$
143,846.83
$
143,886.81
$
143,931.84
$ 145,092.42
$ 1,009,884.40
Appendix 7-36
Jefferson County Limited Obligation School Series 2000 Warrant
Issue Debt to be Assumed by Proposed Gardendale City School System
$45,210,000
Jefferson County Limited Obligation School Series 2000 Warrants
Debt to be Assumed by Proposed Gardendale City School System
INTEREST
MATURITY
SEMI-ANNUAL
TOTAL
RATE
DATE
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST DEBT SERVICE OUTSTANDING
Principal and Interest Due As of April 1, 2013, Including Mount Olive Elementary School
8/15/2012
$
$
$
$ 1,450,570.59
5.50%
2/15/2013
$
148,481.22 $
39,890.69 $
188,371.91 $ 1,302,089.38
8/15/2013
$
$
35,807.46 $
35,807.46 $ 1,302,089.38
5.50%
2/15/2014
$
156,662.84 $
35,807.46 $
192,470.29 $ 1,145,426.54
8/15/2014
$
$
31,499.23 $
31,499.23 $ 1,145,426.54
5.50%
2/15/2015
$
165,753.52 $
31,499.23 $
197,252.75 $
979,673.02
8/15/2015
$
$
26,941.01 $
26,941.01 $
979,673.02
5.50%
2/15/2016
$
174,844.21 $
26,941.01 $
201,785.22 $
804,828.81
8/15/2016
$
$
22,132.79 $
22,132.79 $
804,828.81
5.50%
2/15/2017
$
184,843.97 $
22,132.79 $
206,976.76 $
619,984.84
8/15/2017
$
$
17,049.58 $
17,049.58 $
619,984.84
5.50%
2/15/2018
$
195,449.77 $
17,049.58 $
212,499.35 $
424,535.07
8/15/2018
$
$
11,674.71 $
11,674.71 $
424,535.07
5.50%
2/15/2019
$
206,358.59 $
11,674.71 $
218,033.31 $
218,176.48
8/15/2019
$
$
5,999.85 $
5,999.85 $
218,176.48
5,999.85 $
224,176.34 $
5.50%
2/15/2020
$
218,176.48 $
Total
$ 1,450,570.59 $ 342,099.97 $ 1,792,670.56
n/a
182
Appendix 7-37
Jefferson County
2004 and 2005 Combined Debt Service
Series 2004A, Series 2005A, and 2005B School Warrants
Total
Annual
Date
Debt Service
Debt Service
7/1/2012
1/1/2013
7/1/2013
1/1/2014
7/1/2014
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2016
7/1/2016
1/1/2017
7/1/2017
1/1/2018
7/1/2018
1/1/2019
7/1/2019
1/1/2020
7/1/2020
1/1/2021
7/1/2021
1/1/2022
7/1/2022
1/1/2023
7/1/2023
1/1/2024
7/1/2024
1/1/2025
7/1/2025
1/1/2026
7/1/2026
1/1/2027
Total
$21,079,306.25
$55,199,306.25
$20,153,906.25
$55,948,906.25
$19,183,537.50
$56,738,537.50
$18,165,968.75
$57,555,968.75
$17,099,231.25
$58,439,231.25
$15,980,181.25
$59,335,181.25
$14,807,237.50
$60,322,237.50
$13,576,343.75
$61,326,343.75
$12,285,656.25
$62,400,656.25
$10,878,618.75
$69,728,618.75
$9,249,496.25
$72,859,496.25
$7,553,903.75
$74,193,903.75
$5,840,020.00
$75,515,020.00
$4,113,926.25
$76,863,926.25
$2,089,657.50
$77,189,657.50
$1,165,673,982.50
$76,278,612.50
$76,102,812.50
$75,922,075.00
$75,721,937.50
$75,538,462.50
$75,315,362.50
$75,129,475.00
$74,902,687.50
$74,686,312.50
$80,607,237.50
$82,108,992.50
$81,747,807.50
$81,355,040.00
$80,977,852.50
$79,279,315.00
$1,165,673,982.50
4/10/2012
Public Resources Advisory Group
183

here - City of Gardendale, AL

Transcription

Similar documents

White Pines Golf Dome

what`s for sale? - Alabama Butterbean Festival

Printable PDF Version - The Monticello Classroom!

Jefferson Journal - Jamestown Public Schools

La Sorella di Francesca

Important Facts about Thomas Jefferson

JEFFERSON CENTER JHS ALUMNI NEWS

the trinity site birmingham, alabama

Jefferson Memory Care Hosts Community Events