Annexation

News clippings and a resolution to petition the United States District Court to include all lands into the Little Rock School District that had been annexed by the City of Little rock since 1986. The Little Rock School Board repealed the referendum before the scheduled November 1993 election.
2B SATURDAY, JULY 3,1993 Pulaski Arkansas Demcxrrat TgE (gazite i LR director proposes making city, school boundaries same BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rocks continued westward expansion has prompted a city director to consider whether the city and the school boundaries should be the same. The city Board of Directors will'consider a proposed resolution that asks the Little Rock School District to petition the federal court overseeing the desegregation case to revise the city?school boundary lines to include areas annexed since 1986. '. "The major residential areas involved are in Chenal Valley and Spring Valley Manor predominantly affluent white residential areas of the city that lie within the Pulaski County Special School District boundaries. It makes no sense for the city school district not to grow with the city boundaries, said Sharon Priest, the city director who developed the proposed resolution. Priest said she is worried that by annexing and extending city services to territory not included in the majority black Little Rock school system, city government might encourage development of new neighborhoods in the majority white Pulaski County Special district. But Joan Adcock, another city director, is wondering if the city could get dragged into the 11-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation case by even raising the idea of new school boundaries. Right now I have not made up my mind, but in no way do I want to involve ourselves in school litigation, Adcock said. I dont want the city to be part of that lawsuit. If the school district wants to have the same boundaries as the city, I would favor the idea of the school district asking the court on its own. The proposed resolution is part of the agenda for a regularly scheduled Little Rock Board of Directors meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall. Such a territorial skirmish may seem minor compared to that which set off the Pulaski County school desegregation case in 1982. Back then, the Little Rock school system sued the state and two neighboring school districts, seeking consolidation. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis overturned a 1984 consolidation order in 1985, but shifted to the Little Rock school system the 14 Pulaski County district schools located within the Little Rock city limits. The federal appeals court also said the Little Rock school boundary change was one-time only, and the city school systems boundaries would not grow with the city limits. No one representing the Pulaski County district could be reached for comment Friday, but in the past the board and administration have opposed giving up Chenal Valley because it would cut into the Pulaski County districts tax base. Chris Heller, an attorney representing Little Rock schools in the desegregation case, said Friday that school district bduild- aries could be changed oiilyto correct an unconstitutionaTkit- uation. Even if the board thinks its a good idea, the county board 1 s ! may not, and I dont know any O Maw Proposal Continued from Page 2B way we could force them to change the boundaries if there are no interdistrict violations, Heller said. In the discussions that led to the $129.75 million financial settlement in the Pulaski County school desegregation case, Heller said the parties discussed concerns over the potential for white flight to Chenal Valley. The decision was made that any school in Chenal Valley would have to be_ an inter- district school that is, open to students from other districts.Arkansas Democrat IgrCbazettc WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1993 Copyright 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. I Water sales to help river but risk flight of whites board told 5 BY KEVIN FREKING Democrat-Gazette City Hall Reporter A proposal to sell Little Rock water to outlying communities prompted praise from local environmental leaders Tuesday and warnings from a local civil rights lawyer who believes it could encourage more white flight. The city Board of Directors is likely several weeks away from making a decision on Little Rocks water policy, which has been in effect about 16 years. Several directors said they are reviewing more than a policy on water, because economic, environmental and social implications are involved. Proponents of changing the policy for environmental reasons believe that making Little Rock the regional water supplier could stop a movement to build a reservoir on the North Fork of the Saline River. Barry Haas of the Arkansas Conservation Coalition said that erecting a dam would result in severe environmental damage to a river designated as environmentally sensitive by the state. This board has learned to deal with solid waste disposal on a regional basis, which is to your credit, Haas told the directors. Water is no less regional in nature. It is essential to all communities, not just Little Rock. Haas also said that if Saline County residents could get their water from the Little Rock Municipal Water Works, the countys taxpayers would save a lot of money. The policy now in place sets limits on how much water other cities can buy from the Little Rock waterworks, or it requires them to sign a pre-annexation agreement with the city. Little Rock lawyer John Walker, who is black, said the policy is important because providing a quality water source outside the city would be just another inducement to those wanting to flee from me and others of my color. Walker said the policy has not stopped people from moving to outlying areas, but has served as a deterrent. He asked the board to focus not only on the water policy, but also on its effects on the entire community regarding integration and desegregation. I ask you to make the issue larger than water because the issue is larger than water, Walker said. City Director Hamp Roy is leading the push to make Little Rock the regional supplier of water. Roy reasons that the citys current water policy, established in 1978 to limit growth in areas surrounding the city, ac- , tually has had no affect on ' growth. Little Rocks population de- i creased 1.3 percent during the last decade, while Conways 1 grew 24.4 percent, Maumelles rose 390.8 percent, Sherwoods ! increased 52.5 percent and Bryants grew 36.3 percent.10B WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 22. 1993 Arkansas Democrat Annexation item likely to be taken off Nov. 16 ballot BY KEVIN FREKING Democral-Qazette City Hall Reporter Little Rock city directors are on the verge of altering the Nov. 16 special election ballot to exclude the proposed annexation of 6.43 square miles and about 550 residents into the city limits. The possible repeal of a Sept. 7 ordinance calling for the election surfaced Tuesday night after several residents living just norlliwest of the city told the Little Rock Board of Directors they dont want to be annexed into the city. Three of the seven city directors Jesse Mason Jr., Joan Adcock and Jeff Sharp said they will vote to repeal the ordinance when the board meets Sept. 29. Three other city directors were noncommittal Tuesday regarding their vote. The seventh. Mayor Jim Dailey, was out of town and did not attend the meeting. Even if the annexation referendum is canceled, an election will still be Nov. 16, with residents from four wards electing city directors. The 1,222-acre parcel where the protesters live contains about 122 residents, of whom more than half appeared to be at Tuesdays meeting. The area is bordered by Pinnacle Valley Road on the west, the Arkansas River on the north, the Little Maumelle River on the south and Little Rock city limits on the east. It is one of 15 areas included in the annexation ordinance. The major complaint the board heard Tuesday was that residents were not notified the city wanted to annex the property until they read about it in the newspaper. Sam Perroni, a lawyer who lives in the area, said it was unfair for the board to pass the annexation ordinance without getting reaction from the areas residents. But city staff responded that the board was following procedure established In past elections, when notification was left up to the Pulaski County,Election Commission. "' I < .' Even if all affected residents are notified of a public hearing and the board then goes ahead with an annexation referendum, Perroni said he still would not want the area annexed into the city. He said he feared annexation would lead to more urbanization of the area and would change the lifestyle the residents enjoy. The residents present Tuesday asked that the ordinance setting the election be repealed or amended to exclude that specific area. But if the board removes the area from the referendum, the entire referendum would have to be canceled. City Attorney Tom Carpenter told the board. Neighborhoods and Planning Department Director Jim Law- son also lives in the area, aiid some of the residents at the meeting said he had a vested interest in seeking the annexation. But Lawson said the advantages he would receive through annexation would be no greater than for any other resident. When Lawson recently met with some of the area residents, some of the allegations leveled were that he sought annexation because he wanted to run for the city board and that the City was going to require all employees to live in Little Rock or be fired. Lawson said both allegations are false. Spurring the annexation question was a recommendation from the Future-Little RbCk goal-setting study calling for development of a Fourche Creek Park near south-central Little Rock. Much of that land is not yet annexed into the city. Lawson directed city staff to see what other areas of the county could be included in an annexation referendum. . Lawson said advantages offered to the city through the annexation include: ' A net increase in revehue, because the new tax money to be taken in would exceed what the city would liave to spend to provide services. - Aiding development of a Two Rivers Park in the area. Lawson said he disagreed with Perronis contention that annexation would create more urbanization. He said the area already lies within the cityS extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. Lawson also challenged Per- ronis statement that residents lifestyle would change. Neither current nor fhture residents would be forced to quit raising horses or cattle because the afea became part of the city, he'Said. In other action, the boafd de- layed a vote on establisHlng a salary for themselves uilfil Dailey could be present. (The vote will probably take piece Sept. 29.Arkansas Democrat azctte PrIOAy OCTOBER 1.199^ Foes of annexation hope to get issue off Nov. 16 ballot BY JAKE SANDLIN Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Residents of Little Rocks outlying areas have little say, numerically, about not wanting to be annexed into the city. What many of the residents of one west Little Rock area hope is that their unified voice carries more weight with Little Rocks city Board of Directors than their small number of no" votes would in a citywide election. The annexation issue is scheduled for the Nov. 16 special city election, called to elect four directors from city wards. The opposition comes from residents of the Pinnacle Valley area mostly along either side of County Farm Road. The dissenters generated a proposal from the board to repeal the entire annexation referendum from the November ballot at a Sept. 21 meeting. Wednesday, however, the directors failed to vote on it. So the group, almost 40 strong Wednesday, plans to trek back before the board Tuesday night for a third time to speak against city annexation of their 1,222- acre parcel. Were going to try to persuade the board that its not in Little Rocks best interest to annex us, said Sam Perroni, a lawyer who lives in the area. We feel strongly about it The area generating opposition is bordered by Pinnacle Valley Road to the west, the Arkansas River on the north, the Little Maumelle River on the south and the existing city limits to the east. It has 122 residents. Reasons for the annexation which totals 16 areas amounting to 6.43 square miles and about 550 residents include providing the city a new rev- enue/tax base and eliminating islands, areas already surrounded by city boundaries. The annexation would be also a step toward a Future-Little Rock recommendation for development of a Fourche Creek Park near south-central Little Rock. Future-Little Rock was a study by 13 task forces that forwarded recommendations for improving the yity. Another specific Future-Little Rock goal regarding parks and recreation included the development of a joint city-county project for Two Rivers Park at the former Pulaski County penal farm near the south end of the Interstate 430 bridge. County Farm Road is the only access in or out of that area. Also, the annexing of the Pinnacle Valley area would be a continued growth to the citys northwest. The Important thing is trying to square up the boundaries and make some reasonable sense out there by growing into some areas where we feel potential for urbanization in the future, City Manager Charles Nickerson said Thursday. It will also continue to expand the tax base of the city in areas that appear to be logical growth areas. The residents have said they fear annexation would lead to further urbanization of the area. They also complained that they didnt realize the area was being considered for annexation until reading in the Sept. 10 newspaper that it would be on the Nov. 16 ballot. Involuntary annexation will always draw complaints, Nickerson added, but is part of city growth. Estimated revenues from all of the proposed annexation areas are $208,738, according to the city Neighborhoods and Planning Department, which recommended the annexations. Jim Lawson, neighborhoods and planning director, has lived on County Farm Road in the area for 13 years. Some residents complained at the first board meeting that Lawson has a vested interest in the annexation because he may run for a city board position In the future. Thats not true, Lawson said Thursday. Im not interested in that. The other thing I heard was that they thought the city might pass an ordinance that fired everyone who didnt live in the city limits. We can't pass a law that eliminates them because we have a lot of employees who dont live in Little Rock. ALR annexation election up in air as board sets hearing BY KEVIN FREKING Democrat-Gazette City Hall Reporter Whether Little Rock voters have the opportunity to annex 6.43 square miles of land and 550 people into the city remains undetermined. Tuesday night, rather than making a final decision, the Little Rock Board of Directors invited residents in the 16 areas being considered for annexation to another meeting at 1 p.m. Oct. 13 at City Hall. At that meeting, the board wants to hear from the residents before deciding on the annexation referendum. About five weeks ago, the t board set a Nov. 16 election date for the annexation referendum. But that was before numerous residents of a section of land just northwest of the city made their feelings about the annexation known. The residents, numbering about 120, dont want to be included within the city limits, fearing the move would change the way of life they now enjoy. They also resented not being given a chance to air their views before the election date was set. The group was joined at Tuesday nights board meeting by a few residents from a pock- Arkansas Democrat azeltc See BOARD, Page 6B WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1993 Board Continued from Page 2B et of land south of Little Rock. A spokesman for that group also said he believed the areas quality of life would diminish if it was included within the city. City Manager Charles Nickerson told the board members that if they were going to make annexation decisions based on the proposals popularity within the affected areas, city staff would likely not recommend any annexations. At the Oct. 13 meeting, the board could decide to: Delay the election date to Dec. 14, when a sales tax proposal goes before voters. Go ahead with the November election. Put the annexation issue on hold. City Director Jeff Sharp said he believes the city will be dealing with more important issues than annexation in the coming months. The strongest proponents of going ahead with the November election date were City Directors John Lewellen and Dr. Hamp Roy. In other action, the board authorized staff to provide the matching funds needed to build a walkway and bicycle path across Jimerson Creek. .... I The city would fund up to $200,000 in improvements for the area, including a fishing pier, scenic overlooks, exercise courts, playgrounds and lighting. The federal government has also allocated more than $120,000 for the project. The plans also call for closing about a mile of River Mountain Road built by the city shortly before a majority of city voters said they did not want an automobile bridge built across Jimerson Creek. MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1993 Arkansas Democrat '^(Sazctk LR boards vote on annexation list draws near I ' BY KEVIN FREKING Democrat-Gazette City Hall Reporter Residents in areas targeted for annexation by the city of Little Rock have a final chance , Wednesday to convince the city Board of Directors that their homes should not be an- ( nexed. I If form holds true regarding I Little Rock annexations, their best bet of winning is showing city directors why its not advantageous to Little Rock to have a particular area within the city. 'I'he city has held annexation referendums about every decade for the past 50 years, city planners say, and in many of those cases the affected residents did not want to be annexed into the city. Land annexed through that process makes up a third of Little Rocks land mass, said Jim Lawson, director of the citys Neighborhoods and Planning Department. Every time we do it, its horrible," Lawson said of the re- Little hock annexation city boundary is obtained, the citys tax base is increased and Q-* > Sc " f l? N tr'- the city's interests are protect- , ed. Little Rock z__ 5/ I'L? IJ EM 1945-1978 referendum 1979-1993 referendum & islands sponse generated by residents in the affected areas. We deterniine what should be an-nexed for the good of the (Little Rock) community. You try to have annexations, or you allow growth to oc- MICHAEL STOREY / Arkansas Democrat-Gazette cur outside of the city. For example, North Little Rock cant go anywhere. The principal objective of Little Rocks annexation strategy is to extend the corporate limits so a logical and efficient Sixteen areas are targeted by city staff in recommendations for annexation. The areas encompass about 6.4 square miles and 550 residents. The board meets at 1 p.m. and is likely to vote on the is- ] sue. In early September, the board called for a Nov. 16 elec-
tion in which city residents and residents in the areas affected by the annexation would vote on whether those lands should be part of the city. But the board is on the verge 1 of repealing that ordinance. It could move a revised annexation list to Little Rock voters in a Dec. 14 election. Many residents in the County Farm area dont want to be put in the city. The County Farm area is a 1,200-acre plot adjacent to Little Rock on the south and to the Arkansas Riv- See LAND, Page 3A I Land Continued from Page 1A er on the north. The residents were upset because they were not notified of what the board was considering until it had passed the annexation ordinance. Now, most of the 122 are concentrating on reasons the city should not annex them. Susie Haynes, of 12402 County Farm Road, told the board in a letter dated Oct. 1 that some of the things the city needs to be prepared to provide are: 24-hour security during flooding of the Arkansas River, police protection, mowing and trash pickup along roads and ditches, animal control, fire protection, road enhancement and repairs, sewer services, repairs from river bank erosion, and street lights. Will the (jounty Farm area be an asset or a liability? Haynes asks at the end of the letter. Lawson, who lives in the County Farm area and has drawn the wrath of many of his neighbors, says the answer to that question is asset. We contacted every department head and gave them a map of each area. We asked them to go out and look at it and see whether there were additional costs for that area to be in the city. They said in the College Station area, yes
the other areas, no. The College Station area was removed from consideration after residents voiced concern it would mean the state would not put a health clinic in the area. Many residents faced with annexation fear the cost of being placed in the city will be much greater than living in the county. The Neighborhoods and Planning Department recently compiled a list of the financial advantages and disadvantages of living in Little Rock as compared to the county. Cost disadvantages of being annexed into the city are: A 20 percent increase in the property tax millage paid through real and personal property taxes. A jump in sanitation fees from $6.90 to $13.75 per month. Having to pay a tax when using electricity, gas and the telephone. The franchise tax for gas and electricity is an additional 5.2 percent of the bill. The franchise tax for the telephone is 7.32 percent, plus .004 cents per minute of a long-distance phone call. The cost advantages of being annexed into the city are: Lower fire insurance costs. The city has a Class 2 fire rating, and the county has a Class 8 fire rating. The difference in the two ratings can result in as much as a 50 percent reduction in insurance premiums. Lower water bills. The minimum monthly payment in Little Rock is $3.60, plus 74 cents per 100 cubic feet. The minimum monthly rate in the county is $5.40, plus $1.11 per 100 cubic feet. Lower sewer bills. The minimum monthly payment in the city is $2.57, plus $1.31 per 100 cubic feet. Arkansas Democrat j@r (gazette WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13,1993 ' 9D . LR board expected to void referendum BY KEVIN FREKING Democrat-Gazette City Hall Reporter At the urging of residents fighting annexation into the city of Little Rock, the Little Rock Board of Directors is expected today to void an annexation referendum scheduled for Nov. 16. Mayor Jim Dailey predicted Tuesday morning the board will repeal the ordinance calling for the election during a meeting that begins at 1 p.m. at City Hall. I just think, after talking to several of the board members, theres a consensus not to push this right now, although it may come back in another annexation election, Dailey said after the meeting. While the board is poised to repeal the ordinance calling for the Nov. 16 election, Dailey said he is not sure whether the board will push for another referendum later this year or whether the board will take several months to re-examine its annexation policy. City Director John Lewellen was the most vocal in opposing a repeal. This is typical of our organization. If its working, lets fix it, Lewellen said. During the past 25 years, city directors have aggressively pursued annexations, accounting for about a third of the citys 100- plus square miles. The ordinance now being reconsidered stipulates that 15 areas, currently surrounded by or adjacent to the city, would be annexed into the city if a majority of voters approved. The parcels of land represent about 6.4 square miles and contain about 550 residents. Most of the opposition to the annexation referendum comes from residents in the County Farm area, which is northwest of the city limits. It borders the Arkansas River on the north and the Little Maumelle River on the south. Daileys prediction came a day after residents in the County Farm area gave five city directors a tour of their property. The residents are wanting to show city directors the development that has taken place there in recent decades and to ask directors to take more time to examine the issue. The residents propose the-
city form a committee of staff : and residents that would work during the next year in forming ' an annexation policy.
The current policy follows development rather than antic
ipates it. Also, a study of recent'
annexations suggests a lack of a carefully orchestrated policy, - said Michael Drake, a resident- of the area. Some residents in the County > Farm area also have been told- their children would be re* quired to be in the Little Rock
School District if the area waS. annexed. City officials said the asser-
tion is wrong and the school dis--
tricts borders are different, from the citys in several areas.2B -THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14,1993 Pulaski Arkansas Democrat (gazette LR directors repeal annexation ordinance, 6-0 BY KEVIN FREKING De^iocrat-Uazane City Hall Raportar Eitfle Rock voters wont de- cide>whether 6.4 square miles of I'and and 550 residents are an- nexed mto the city. 'TIid^Little Rock Board of Directors repealed an ordinance Weffiteisday calling for a Nov. 16 eftection on the annexation question. Facing opposition to annSkation from residents in the gounty Farm area northwest of the current city limits, theiboard said it wants to re- . ______ _ _ _ evaluate the citys annexation policy. Mayor Jim Dailey read a prepared statement at the beginning of Wednesdays meeting, stating the board wants city staff to catalog the various concerns raised about the citys annexation policy during the past month. The staff is then to present a report to the board, so it can determine the citys annexation policy in the future. The board voted 6-0 to repeal the ordinance. Director Jeff Sharp was not present for the vote but later attended the meeting and told the board he supported voiding the election. While it is not clear what the appropriate process should be, it is clear there is little agreement that an appropriate process has been followed, Dailey said. Rather than begin a new relationship with any area of the city on bitter terms, it is in the best interest of the city to withdraw this annexa- tion election, proceed to determine if a different process should be followed and, if so, to follow that process prior to any election. Many of the residents who would be affected by annexation into the city voiced concern they were not included in the discussion of whether their property should be annexed. They said they were not notified Some of the residents who could have been annexed into the city asked that the city set up a policy under which all affected residents provide input into the citys decision-making. Dailey said city staff followed state law and the past practices of the city Board of Directors in preparing the annexation ordinance for the board. Other city directors, includ- of the ordinance being passed _____________- until they saw it in the newspa- current annexation policy, said ing those who support the citys per. : they did not object to a re-evalnation of the citys annexation policy. Director John Lewellen said other issues need to be at the forefront of the boards attention, but he would like to see the board address the annexation policy before the end of 1994. The city has aggressively annexed lands to the west and southwest during recent decades to capture the tax revenue coming from residential growth in those areas.MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1993 Spanks WE 6oTlA S'i'OP 'IHEse Low-PowM, SNEAfCh' lyWMlG^ANTS PROAA ci^oSSiNG 0U1? SoP.^ei^
Y 2 A And Gotta STOP'e*a Noy)! if TH6g. xjJONT ' 6c AM'i'BopY Lepr N Fop. US To yWMiTog? ,1 'ABtfT Wtgi '^1 'V v<*. 0* % '*< TRg|T0Ev or TeRRiToEv /n^ ArsM r^rryr>^'rat.fia7fift0 & Jeffrey Huddlestoopinion. *) /o 0 / /J J/ The District Court approved the plan, 659 F. Supp. 368 (E.D. Ark. 1987), and no one appealed. 363, For another, the City of Little Rock annexed certain additional territory. and the question arose whether our direction that LRSD be expanded to the city limits referred to the city limits as they existed at the time of our en banc opinion, or to the city limits as they might exist from time to time in the future. The District Court held that LRSD would automatically expand whenever the city annexed new territory. so that LRSD would always be contiguous with the city as it existed from time to time. We reversed. We held that the remedy i. contemplated by our en banc opinion was intended to be a complete cure for all interdistrict violations that we had found. The en banc opinion, we said, prescribed "a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past," including all interdistrict violations. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). In addition. a controversy arose with respect to student assignments within PCSSD. We held that these assignments must, in general, conform to the racial percentages specified in a plan submitted by PC^D in January of 1987. We held that black enrollment in PCSSD schools, with some exceptions, would have to be within a range of 18 to 30 per cent.^ This range represents a 25 per cent, variance from the overall racial composition of PCSSD, which at that time was 24 per cent, black. We emphasized that this prescribed range was to be used as "a guideline for the subsequent remedy, and not as a rigid quota." This range was subject, in any event, to the proviso that a II forty-five minute limit on busing" of students, one way, would be a "cap for purposes of desegregating PCSSD schools." Little Rock School District Pulaski County V . Special School District. 839 F.2d 1296, 1304-05 (8th Cir.), cert. Bayou Meto Elementary School, situated in a remote location, was expressly excepted from these requirements. 1305 n.l2. See 839 F.2d at -22- - v 07-02-1993 132:11PM FROM TO 3710100 P.02 2 RESOLUTION NO, 3 i A 5 6 I I i 8 9 10 II 7 .3 14 I i i 15 IS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 3 3 34 3 36 J} RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD OP DIRECTORS OP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM THE BOARD THE OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, REQUESTING THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PETITION THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN LTTTLS ROCK SCKOOL DISTRICT V. RDDASKl COUKTV SPSCIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE : LANDS 1986
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO INCLUDE ALL ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK SINCE and FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, Arkansas, policies, policies, has and that in recent years the City of Little tried, to adopt annexation policies, extraterritorial extension of would not adversely affect the efforts desegregate the Little Rock School District
and WHEREAS, I j Eighth Circuit I ! i I I : Rock, growth utility to the United States Court of Appeals for the reversed a District Court order
autoinatically extended School District to the boundaries of the Little include extensions \boundaries brought about by annexation
and WHEREAS, of that Rock the City's requests to annex land to the City, or to extend utility services to areas outside the City, always involves difficult questions of the impact that such action Utility may have on the efforts to desegregate the Little Rock School District
and WHEREAS, the City believes that territory annexed to the City Rock School District. since 1986 should be made a part of NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the THE DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: Little BOARD OP SECTION 1
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock respectfully requests the Board of Directors of 1
the Little Rock School District to direct the District's legal counsel to petition the United States District Court for a change in the present school boundaries to07-02-1993 02:11PM FROM TO 3710100 P.03 2 3 I I 4 assure City . that of 5 6 7 8 I I all properties that have been annexed to Little Rock since 1986 shall be a Little Rock School District boundaries. Little SECTION Rock 2. District petition concerning 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 I 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 I I 3 3 34 35 1 i [ I i 36 i part of the the The Board of Directors of the City further requests that the Little Rock the District Court, of School while questions desegregation of the school district are still under litigation, to conduct an annual review of the school districts' boundaries and, at such review, to appropriately modify the Little Rock School District boundaries to reflect any changes in the City's boundaries which resulted from annexation. ADOPTED: ATTEST: APPROVED: RobbIe Hancock CITY CLERK JIM DAILEY MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: THCHfiS K. CITY ATTORNEY CARPEaJTER Krx?vSIG SrtS FEneilAl. REPORTER, 2d SERIES iween PCSSl) and the Little Rock School OistricL (LRi'bk We said
3. The district court, after a hearingJ shall adjust the boundaries between PCSSO and LRSQ as follows
f (al All land wiihin the City of LitCfi Rock shall be assigned to LRSD. and thl students living in that area shall be assigned to schools in LRSD. (b> All land in the Granite Mountain area will be included in PC3SD, and the -sfuilenls Jiving iti that are-i shall be as^ signed to schools in PCSSD. The recurd^ IS not clear as to the precise Imundariip IJTTLK KOCK SCII. DiST. v. I4
L.\: CllR4.R0i r.3JStS ISihCh ,SKJ-AAA,\. Sl Si" of this area, thus evidentiary hearini s 'vill be lield by the district court to deter- / with tlic exception of the Granite Mountain area described above, hem-pfnr-ward the boundaries of the Little Rock School District, both now and in the future, shall be cotornunous with the boundaries of the City of Uttle Rock as tliey exist now and as they will exist in / the future as the city expands. Rovk School Uisiricl v. Pulctski SiH'cioi School Difitiici., No. LR- 082-866 (E.D.Ark. August 1, 1986), slip 4)p. 3. 111 Tlie portion cjf this order directing > (hat the boundaries of LRSD shall automatically expand, at the' ex*pense of PCSSD, whenever the City of Little Rock tion with respect to any such anne.xaiions effect on s-chool-district lioun^laries will be t^sken by eillier LUSU or PCSSD. Any such farts and their legal consequences must be left to future development. (21 It follows that the distrirc court's order, insofar as it expands automalically the Lmniidarks of J.RSU in the event of any future anne.xatioh of territory by the City of Little Rock, cannot stand. Ordinarily, it xvQuld be appropriate at this [loint b> remand tlie ca.e to (lie ilistrict court with dir^jctions- to reciniiiider (he question of rcmcily in light of this opinion. Blere, however, we believe this pnjcedural st.ep Is tion. ii self*ci juiothur lioun iary linv if
he specified facts sm ei in our opinion could he fijimd. Or. remand, PCSiD did >uhfnir. an alternate plan, but the district court rnjeeieJ it, and we bencvt ihjs action wuiJ within the discretion of that court as doline-aied in <jk4r previous opininn. AJthongh portious at least of the PCS.SD plan may have points tn cumniend thenx it is nut clear that the plan 'would better meet the educational needs of the studo! of the I 13 ru 1 D '.n GJ r3o n0j Z. mine them. It is the intent of (his Cou: that the boundaries of this arei sha auiiexes Urritory, cannot stand.' The unnecessary. The order of the district reasonably reflect the area that was im' uiiiiuAis new lemcory^ caimot stanu. I houhdary-liiic change we ordered pacted by the deannexation of land from PCSSD to IJISD. nounoary-Jinc was 3 based upon "all of (he defendants inbsrdis-nj\ trict violations oulltned in [our] * * opin- \ion "TTS P'.2d at 4S5 n. 20, -This (c) hl lieu of the adjustments indicated in {a> and (b'K the district court, upon cliaoge was designed to produce, among other things, a student ratio within LRSD application by a party to this appeal, may condui't cviflentiary hearings to determine whether adjustments othnr than those indicated in (a) and (b) would have substantially the same impact on the student jxipulaticns of each district and would better meet Ihe educational needs of the students of the districts involved. After such hearings, the district court-may make adjustments to the boundaries other than those iiulicated above if it finds that they woukl better nir-et the educational needs of the students, and w'ould remedy the conslitiitional violations to (hu .same cxient as the adjust-munis in (a) amt (b). 778 F.2d a( 435 (footnote omitted). On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and entered an order placing ill effect lis boundary-line remedy, rhe district court rejrix'tcd a plan aubmiUed of ap^cwiimtely sixty percent black and forf^^^ercent wTite.' Ai at 419.^the rem.er dy prcscribeir was mtemk^dti/.^itXidl-and district"segrG^e_etfect>-t4ie-eourts -will orccurse be open and abl_^_tq_,prder an appnrpn^
fein^"oai>ifi|ffi - But ivrongs doEie-in the pa^t HJCSiyj.ojc_soni6other*gov??rnTnen-tal entity _coinmju._aatithec.-.a3nstitutiiial ^dotation in_the^utur^whii^^has an inter- ^by PCSSD and accepted a plan submitted dby LE31) and supported by the Joshua [inC*?rvenors, wh<. represent the black -gschoolchildren who are (he true aggrieved yparties in this tvhole litigation. The district js.^oiirfs order states, in pertinent part
at least for the time being, th^ boundary change between the twci district.*^ must be a <i]iFt}niie~c Range LRSD and the Joshua intervenors point to a finding made hy the district court during the trial of the question of ttabiJity (o the effect that PCSSD chose to freeze its boundaries in order to hold down the number of black students within its borders. On the previous appeal we affirmed this finiling as not clearly erroneous. 778 P.2d at 418--19. Thal boundaries were frozen in the past, however, does not prove Uiat they will continue (o be frozen for the indefinite future, and the district court has not so found. We simply do nut know what annexations the City of Little Rock may undertake in the future, or tvhat posi-court, when taken in the context of the entire case, sufficiently evinces a deternd-uatjon that the boundary line between LftSI) an<l Pt'SSD, e:<cept for the Granite Monolain area, should, to the fullest extent possible, coincide with the municipal liiniis of the City of Little Rock. We are virtually cerViin that, ih the event of a remand, the district court would simply reform its order by removing chat porcion having prospective effect, and would direct that the boundary line beixveen the two school districts be the city Hmits as they existed at die time of the hearing on remand before the district-court, June 16-19, 1986. [31 The Questbin before u.-i, (hen^ comes down to thia: Is an order fixing the schooldistrict boundary line at the city limits as of June 19, 1986, an abu.*e of di.scretion? We think the answer to this question is districts involved," certainly not sufficient' ly clear to justify the substitution of our )udgTneHt for that of the district conn, which is the trier of fact ami in whose discretion this kind of^llecision normally lies. Il is true, as pointed out in PCSSD's 'brief and at oral argiirrienl, that the city limits are somewhat different imw from what they were in November of 1BS5, when our eti bane opinion was fried. Thc record before us demonstrates, however, that adding the territory annexed since November of i9S5 (o LRSD will not aobsiantuilly change the srudent-population makeup (hat wc had in niind when our en banc opinion was filed. We therefore hebevc that this I III clearly n<3- Oiir en baj^c opinion on the rekilively small devialion. by the district court from a literal reading of our en bajie opinion is within that court's discretion. We are fortified in (his conclusion by the fact that none of the parties, during the proceedings on remand before the discrie*. court, made any point of :he additional, jiost'-19d5, annexations, or suggested to the district court that its decision slmutd be n :ti o [>rior ajuieal indicated a clear preference for tile city hnd(s as the school-district boundary line. It gave the district court fhsen-tion to prescribe other limits, but only on a finding that those ether limit.s "would haxm substantialij^ the same inipact on the student populations of each district and would better meet the educational tieeds of the students of the districts involved/ 778 liased on the city limits a.'^ iey existed at the time unr en banc opinion s filed. rather than as they existed at the time uf the evidentiary hearing before the district court. In short, to the e.xtent that the orrler of the district court directed that the Ivjund-aries between the two school -iistripia shajl Cd -'J o 13 O F.2d at 435. The presumptlou, in other automatically change whet: er additional words, vzas (hat Oie boundary line should coincide with the city limits as they existed at a particular point in time, witli leave granted to the district, court, in its discrews S 2d2ii teri'itory is annexed to the City of Lntlc Rock, it should be reversed. To the extent that tJie order direcw tba: the boundary between the two school districts shall be the city limits of the City of Little Rock as O * * * )K * * DATE START SENDER TRANSACTION Ttj ]RT RX TINE PAGES TYPE P.Ol JUL- 2-93 FRI 14:07 NOTE JUL- 2 14:03 G3 3'10" 4 RECEIVE OK * * )X )(( X x
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.