Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By NOAH WORTHAM | Managing Editor

After multiple appeals, the Alabama Supreme Court has made its decision in a land dispute between Helena and the Pelham Board of Education that dates back to 2021.

On Friday, Aug. 2, by a vote of 5-3, the court decided that the Pelham BOE had the right to build on the land situated behind Pelham High School in Helena city limits and Helena has no legal standing.

For several years, the city of Helena and Pelham City Schools have been in a dispute over the 52 acres of land, which resides next to the softball field. The land was purchased by the Pelham Board of Education in 2021, but was also laid out as a possible neighborhood for the city of Helena at one point named The Preserve.

According to the original lawsuit filed in Shelby County, Pelham had commenced land clearing and construction activities within Helena city limits with the expressed intent of constructing one or more sports practice fields and parking lots for use in conjunction with Pelham High School, which is located in the Pelham city limits.

The original lawsuit, filed on Nov. 29, 2021, claimed that Pelham’s clearing of the land and construction activities, and the proposed use of the property by the Pelham BOE, are contrary to the Helena zoning regulations and other applicable permitting ordinances and are being conducted without the necessary permits and approvals of Helena.

Read more about the original filing here.

On May 6, 2022, presiding Judge Patrick E. Kennedy ruled in favor of the Pelham BOE. At the time, he said that, to the balance of the claims, the Pelham BOE exists and its power to act flows from Alabama law.

He also said that city zoning ordinances do not apply to the operation of governmental function by a government body and that the Pelham BOE is a government body.

Read more about Kennedy’s decision here.

The city of Helena then appealed Kennedy’s decision, after which, the state remanded the case to the local level after saying the initial ruling didn’t follow Rule 65(d)(2), which says that you must set forth the reasons for the ruling in detail.

After going back to the local level, the case was upheld in detail. The city of Helena appealed to the state again, which led to oral arguments on June 5, 2024.

On Aug. 2, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pelham by a vote of 5-3 with Chief Justice Tom Parker and associate justices Brady Mendheim, Jay Mitchell and Greg Shaw all voting in favor of Pelham for majority opinion. Associate Justices William Sellers, Kelli Wise and Tommy Bryan dissented, while Greg Cook recused.

“This case is about where acts concerning the administration and management of public schools can occur,” Shaw said. “While the locations of those public schools are fixed ‘within such city,’ the code section does not suggest that powers exercised in relation to the administration and management of those schools within the city’s boundaries are similarly fixed.”

Shaw pointed to Section 16-11-9 of the Alabama Code 1975 in illustrating why he concurred fully with the main opinion.

“The city board of education is hereby vested with all the powers necessary or proper for the administration and management of the free public schools within such city and adjacent territory to the city which has been annexed as a part of the school district which includes a city having a city board of education,” reads Alabama Code Section 16-11-9.

Shaw also stressed that one cannot conflate the powers of a board of education with the powers of a city or a city’s ability to operate outside of its geographical limits.

He pointed to the “powers” granted to a city board of education within the code and how they include anything that is, “necessary or proper for… administration and management.” He also noted that the objects to be administered and managed are the “free public schools.”

“The ‘public schools within such city’ are the things to which the powers are to be directed, not a limitation where the powers may be exercised,” Shaw said. “While, in many cases, the powers would be exercised at the location of the schools, those powers are not so constrained.”

Sellers provided a differing opinion and shared the perspective of those who dissented in the decision.

“The Pelham Board of Education does not have the power under 16-11-9, Ala. Code 1975, to construct and use the athletic field and parking lot on the real property in dispute here without the property first being annexed by the city of Pelham as part of the Pelham school district,” Sellers said.

Sellers pointed toward the same section in explaining their dissent and highlighted particular wording to support the position. The line in question states that the BOE is vested with all the powers necessary for management of the free public schools “within such city and adjacent territory to the city which has been annexed as a part of the school district.”

“Because the PBE will be tasked with the administration and management of the athletic-field project, the property on which the project is located must be annexed by Pelham as part of the Pelham school district,” Sellers said.

Sellers also pointed to the fact that school boards, like other governmental entities, are defined by geographic boundaries. Sellers concluded by expressing the dissenting opinion’s concerns regarding the presumed powers given by the main opinion.

“I am concerned that the main opinion gives a city board of education the ability to purchase and use property anywhere in Alabama, with the sole limitation being that it serve only those students living within the geographic boundaries of the city of its formation,” Sellers said.

The land in question has already been developed into a parking lot and practice athletic field with an access road. There is still room for future development on the acreage, while renderings for the property also allow for possible access from Alabama 261 (Helena Rd.) to the school campus.

One of the main stances for Helena’s argument was that it would force the city to use emergency personnel paid for by city taxpayers to supply response to the facility. It is unclear if the city of Pelham will instead offer to supply emergency response.

Any further details related to this story will be made public when available.