Reader comments
Huntsman calls session to tackle school splits

Why have legislators not responded to this analysis that I found on the Granite school district website? I object to a plan that would give our schools and children LESS money for our schools, even though our area is booming:

The current School Facility Funding Equalization draft does nothing for Granite School District, and, more importantly, is not good for Salt Lake County as a whole. According to numbers provided in the proposal, the Salt Lake County taxpayers would provide $40,779,998 in tax dollars for the State School Facilities Fund and receive only a $13,648,863 benefit. The balance of $27,131,135 in Salt Lake County tax dollars would be redistributed to other counties.

For example, Utah County would contribute only $13,514,867 and receive $35,314,979 from the Fund; Davis County would contribute $8,237,289 and receive $14,981,106.

Although being touted as the answer to capital inequities in Salt Lake County school districts, it is interesting that the equalization formula currently proposed causes the one county with districts threatened by �splits� to contribute $27,131,135 more than it would receive from the Fund to meet building needs.

The proposal would cut the basic school tax levy nearly in half and shift the funds to a state building fund, putting all Utah school district operating budgets at risk by slashing a stable revenue source and replacing it with a more volatile income tax source.

As it currently stands, this proposal does not mitigate the burden that would be incurred by taxpayers west of the Jordan River in the event of a Granite District division.

I still don't understand the thinking behind the split in the two districts. I know that the "East Side" is concerned with the growing costs of building new schools on the west side an that their thinking that it is not fair that they help with the cost of that growth but they do forget that when the East side was growing and when they were in need of new buildings the west side contributed money to those needs. Now that the west side needs help the east side is turning there complaining that it isn�t fair that their taxes should go to help solve the need of that growth. This sounds a little selfish on their part.

The other argument is that because they - the east side - have more money and less students than the west side - that the split would make it possible for the east side to ultimately have smaller class sizes. I don't think will end up happening. The reasons are as follows (As I understand them)
1.The money from property taxes is, by law, is only to be used for actual building construction; building maintenance; landscaping, etc., of each building in each district. So doesn�t that mean that none the money from property taxes can actually be used to help create smaller classes?
2.The Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) is the money that is given to each district by the legislature and this is the only money that impacts on class size - paying for teacher salaries; classroom supplies, etc. The more students in a district the greater the WPU given to that district. I am not sure but I think this translates into larger class sizes on the East side because of a smaller number of students within that new district.

bob

Dear Speaker Curtis,
If this equalization scheme is so good, (and it isn't), why do you need to "show of faith" from the county council to procede? Why does the county plan only benefit the district in which you reside? How does this help Granite? By taking from them more money than they will receive?

Signed,
more questions than answers

Senators Walker and Curtis are representing their districts but are not thinking about what is best for children. The "new district" will have to close schools on the east side because I believe the legislature passed a law about having a building with the apporpriate amount of students in it. Well then Granite High needs to be closed then.
My dad is on a fixed income and none of the mumbo jumbo about equalization will help him. Get it right legislators. You haven't yet. You pass things such as holding the teachers feet to the fire and what makes them a good teacher. No one puts the problem at the parents feet. Children leave school for 3-4 weeks to go back to their native country, but then are expected to pass tests and these tests reflect on the teacher. But its not the teachers fault that the child left for a month. Legislators do not live in a real world. They here special interests only and the silent majority will always remain silent. By the way why can't there be a total county wide vote on this thing. It affects both sides of the river. Get it right. Repeal the darn law.

The real problem is that only East-siders get to vote. Even if funding issues were figured out, the voting problem would be a fatal flaw. Two new districts will be created - let all those affected vote on it. If smaller school districts will help everyone, let everyone vote. The legislature should fix this provision in the law.

If the legislature does not fix the voting problem, the county council should not put the split on the ballot. It will further divide east and west. Doesn't the council represent the whole county?

I totally aggree with Russ. PLEASE REPEAL THE LAW. It is a totally Unfair Law. Both sides will be affected so both sides Should Vote. I sure hope our wonderful legislators see these comments. Or maybe they won't be legislators come when there time is up. I sure hope something good comes out of this and not at the cost of the employees of the districts. AGAIN PLEASE REPEAL THE LAW.

The west side consists of young families where the parents are generally politically powerless. They have not yet become involved in the political process because they are so busy raising children and providing for their families. These young parents come from the east side where they were educated. Their parents still live on the east side, but are simply unwilling to pay for the education of their grandchildren. It is sad.

I was listening to Doug Wright one day and Senator Walker was asked why only one area gets to vote -- she said that part of the law will not be changed because it would insure that the split would never occur. Talk about self-serving lawmakers -- they only want this on the ballot this year because they know that trule close examination and a real study not micromanaged by city and legislative leaders would show how this plan will ultimately harm kids by loss of programs and increased class size and more grade split classes. Do the math folks.

Great! Now the Evil East Side hates their grandkids, and the West siders are "politically powerless". GOOD GRIEF!
The law is correct and perhaps many need a refresher course in civics to understand why. "The government closest to the people governs best" - Thomas Jefferson (a pretty smart guy). It was true then and still is today. The right to self-governance supercedes others' right to vote on any issue in both State and Federal Law.

No one EVER gets to vote on EVERYTHING that might affect them. Do you really want me voting on how much police protection you get in your city, whether WalMart can move in at the end of your street, or whether you get a new school for your kids?

Having everyone in a district vote to split (as opposed to creating a new one, which is what SB30 is all about) has been on the books for years. Guess what - IT DOESN'T WORK, therefore a better way was required and provided in SB30.

The West side of Jordan has ALWAYS been subsidized. They currently pay 43% of the taxes (the highest ratio in history - even when Kennecott was not centrally assessed for taxes), yet have 47% of the schools, and 57% of the students. This wouldn't be a problem EXCEPT that as a result the East side kids sit in aging, seismically-unsound, sweltering, and non-tech enables classrooms - and refurbishing dollars evaporate EVERY YEAR due to construction overruns on the west side.

Again, the government closest to the people governs best. A new district on the east side of the Jordan river will allow the East side to focus on their issues (refurbishing etc.), and the west to focus on their pressing growth issues. One shouldn't come at the expense of the other.

Salt Lake City School District which undertook a multi-million dollar building program over the past decade due to the vital need to replace its older school buildings should not be penalized for having committed Salt Lake City residents to this wise and ambitious sacrifice. Shifting available tax dollars from Salt Lake City to Jordan School District would be unfair. A state-wide building equalization program would be more just and fair.

The point is that the public school system in Utah has been chronically underfunded. This has led to the scarcity mentality and actions that are found in this process. It has also forced districts to make decisions to balance budgets, which unfortunately have involved school closures. Mr. Uno is correct, SLC should not be penalized to help Jordan. If the equalization is a good idea, then take the time during the regular session and don't ram it through in a one day special session.

The idea that the west side funded the east side when they were growing is false. Only a small portion of the west side has been around long enough to have actually help fund the east side. If you don't split the districts, then the east side will end up funding schools on both sides while the relatively new (last 10 years) west side will only fund their own (at a reduced price thanks to the east siders).

A Jordan School Board representative represents more people than a state senator, what makes you think he cares what we want? The Murray school district is an example of how a smaller district does a better job at meeting the needs of the students. That is why people are looking at creating new districts.

The west side is complaining that the east side is being selfish, but they don't care that the children on the east side sit in schools falling apart around them, which sounds pretty selfish to me. I'm grateful the middle school that went up in flames a year ago chose to burn while the children weren't there. Almost all the east side schools are in the same state of disrepair, but no repairs have been made in years (Holladay Middle being the notable exception) but no one on the west side cares. Does an east side child have to die before the problem is addressed? Or is that too selfish?

I didn't get to vote when Taylorsville incorporated, even though it raised my taxes significantly. I didn't get to vote when the Jordans annexed large tracks of county, even though it also raised my taxes significantly. Self-determination is a federal law. I understood the law, so didn't complain. I have the right of self-determination to create a new district. You get as much say in the matter now as I did then.

I want a smaller district because I want more say in my children's education, and I'm sick of worrying if the ceiling is going to fall on their heads. Those points are what are most important to me, and are the only things I really care about. Please forgive my selfishness.

The school split law was specifically designed to allow a minority portion of the school district to vote to split away and form their own, new district, without being held hostage by the majority. THAT is why "everyone" doesn't get to vote.

The west side does not want the east side forcing them to bus kids to existing schools before building new schools within walking distance or otherwise dictating spending decisions. But the west side does want east side taxes to pay for these decisions. That is HARDLY just. Further, it encourages bad decisions. People ALWAYS make more careful, thoughtful decisions with their own money, than they do with other people's money.

I'm sure the British government would have loved a few votes in the Continental Congress concerning the Declaration of Independence. We are ALL better off that they did not have those votes.

The west side did NOT subsidize the east side schools when they were being built. They either used those schools themselves OR had schools built on their side of the valley as the need arose.

Smaller districts, closer to the people and more responsive to individual community needs will be good for all.

When Taylorsville or Cottonwood Heights voted to incorporate, I didn't get to vote, but then again the vote did not dissolve the County Council I voted for nor were SL County boundaries redrawn. When the east side votes to create its own school district, the board members I voted for are automatically removed from office and my school district and many of the resources those board members voted to approve are removed to another district. And this is fair how?

If Charles H is correct that government (school districts) are always best closest to home, then maybe instead of East Side/West Side we should have a district for each community. Maybe we should have a district for each neighborhood like was the practice in some places in the past. I guess I favor whatever will be the best for the kids. Remember that the kids from all over will be working, perhaps in a different area than where they were educated, and will have to be able to work together. Besides they will then be making the decision on how our schools are run and what we should do with all the "old folks".

Charles,
We had this discussion on the Trib's site a couple weeks ago, but it must not have sunk in yet, so I'll try again.
The west side most certainly did subsidize the east side schools. There were not as many families as there are now in WVC and the various Jordans, but let's look past the family level. If you go outside and look out at the Oquirrh Mountains, you'll see that there's this huge hole out there, right? Well, it's called the Kennecott Copper Mine, and in the 50's, 60's and 70's that hole was a pretty happenin' place. That corresponds roughly to when Olympus, Skyline, Cottonwood, Brighton, Hillcrest, etc. were all built. KCC was the largest employer in the state then, so whadya say we go back through their financials and see how much property tax they paid that supported the east-side schools.
I'm also getting very tired of the Revolutionary War metaphors - they don't apply. Nobody in Birmingham or Liverpool was affected in the slightest by what was happening in the Colonies. Here, unless something drastic changes from the current proposals, people in the communities affected by splitting GSD will have real impacts, either in terms of paying higher property taxes or in changing the school their kids go to. Plus, the vote to create a new district dissolves the existing GSD Board, for which I voted over the last several elections, thereby negating my vote. So I agree - everyone affected should have a vote!

Charles/Hawaiilover,
Just surfed by on my way to a real life.
So both of you have no life that you must argue on the News/trib/ksl comment sites? Go do something productive with your lives. Besides sitting in front of your computer clicking on sites to allow them to make more money with a click counter, go read a book to a kid.

The big hole that is KCC did pay some property taxes back in the day, however to beleive that is was >50% (thus actually creating a subsidy) of the total for either Granite or Jordan is suggesting a poor grasp on reality. You think the big hole paid more property tax than tens of thousands of residents and businesses?

Residents in Bimingham or Liverpool with business interests in the colonies would have been impacted by the revolution. Also any residents' sons sent to fight the war probably realized some affect on their lives. No one lives in an independant bubble.

A new district does not dissolve the existing boards, in fact the opportunity to re-structure the boards (so that a board member who no longer resides in the district is not charged with administering it) is addressed in the law i.e. an election in the June after a new district is created. Existing board members of Granite/Jordan that still reside in those district will still serve out their terms. No dissolution at all. Furthermore the June election will allow more representation for those in the existing district as board districts will have to be reduced in size - thus bringing representation closer to you.

BTW - you've never voted for the entire Granite Board - only the single representative from your district (which might/maybe have some area in the new district - but again, those people in the new district will also get to elect closer representation!). What a tragedy!?!