Reader comments
Jordan-east team talking arbitration

The amount of greed seen from the East side is incredible. They want everything and then some, anything to punish those wicked west side people.

Arbitration or legislative action is required at this point since the law for splitting is so screwed up anyway. The Governor should call a special session and bring back the clowns who created this mess so they can fix it. In the meantime those buildings are being built, the money that the East so selfishly wants is being spent to house kids.

They kept telling us "It's not about the money." Now we see that it really is. Can we vote again? Please!

If it is not about the money why do you want in the east side pocket? personally I was against the split.There should have been funding built into the new houses that went up. But those who bought did not want to pay either. Who is the greedy one?

First they wouldn't even let us vote, now they want us to pay so they can leave? I say, they are leaving the district. If they want the schools in their area, they should have to buy them from the existing district at today's pricing. They should get nothing! As for me, once this split happens, I will no longer support east side business!

so let me get this straight, the district votes for a bond to build schools, most of which are on the west side due to their explosive growth. The new district, who does not benefit from the bond wants those who are benefitting from the bond to pay their fair share. What an outrage!

BTW, where is that new middle school for Draper that was promised when we voted for this bond. Oh yeah, the district decided that the west side needed it more.

I believe the west side greed is what needs to be checked at the door for these negotiations.

This is just another example of the rich getting richer. This all about the east side greed and elitism. The legislature, in their short sighted, arrogant way, made this ill advised split possible. Their attitude is "trust us, we know best". No doubt, the east side, with their money and influence, will now hire their high priced attorneys and get what they want. Some things never change.

It was the west-side that out-and-out rejected this proposal at a meeting their own two-member negotiating team couldn't attend. It was a reasonable compromise proffered by two of their own team members as well as two on the east-side. It was a compromise that provided the west-side with 2/3 of the assets even though the east will serve almost half of the students. But the west-side transition team members said two-thirds wasn't enough. They wanted more. Their focus was only on politically pleasing their west-side constituents -- not the necessity of making both districts viable. There are thousands of children on both sides of the district who need educational services. To reject the compromise without putting forward any other alternative is not only damaging -- but yes, greedy.

Thanks to the split the bonds had to be issued early. That is what happened to the Draper Middle School. It wasn't yet needed, but probably would have been needed before some other West side schools if we had time.

Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me! Yes, the west side is dealing with tremendous growth. Well, guess what. Little old Draper has experienced that same growth. Where is the promised middle school? Where is the promised high school? Oh, I'm so sorry! We can't build a middle school in Draper, even though it is desperately needed. We can't build a high school, either. Why? The west side needs the buildings more, so no funding is available for the east side.

People can say what they want to. Even though most administrators would not admit it, future funding for building in the district SPLIT OR NO SPLIT is overwhelmingly allocated to the west side.

Read the minutes of the board meetings. They tell a similar story.

This mess could be repeated if Granite's east side isn't paying attention. What a joke.

I have to laugh when I read all of the East-sider comments accusing the West-siders of greed. Well, excuse us for not wanting to fund your new school district. No matter how this turns out, our taxes will go up, and yours will go down. This is not a temporary issue, but a long-term problem that will affect the quality of education on the west side for decades to come.

This is the ONLY voice we have had to this point on this issue. Since you all decided unilaterally to raise our taxes for us last November, the least we can do is return the favor.

The so-called Draper High School was not on the docket to be built in 2003, the middle school was. Let's not be making things up to make it sound worse than it is.

That Middle school isn't yet needed. But it sure will be in less than five years. The East will have to issue a bond election to pay for it. I am sorry that the school lacked funds, but because of the greed of a small amount of people we all are going to suffer. If only people waited for facts before rushing to vote for a split.

Draper has some new schools. Oak Hollow and Willow Sprongs have been built since 2000 right? I don't see what the fuss is about. Shouldn't a school be built where it is needed most? If a District issued bonds to build schools where it is less needed that would make them wasteful spenders.

This will cost the East side more in arbitration. They have more of the District level buildings than the West and the schools are going to stay on the sides they reside. The money they are trying to steal has been spent or will be spent by the time the District is split in 2009. The only way they can get the money is if they get a court order injunction to stop the building.

Just how selfish is the East going to be?

Z and others: Despite your protests, the only way YOUR taxes will be raised is if YOU vote to do so. YOU will have the opportunity to say if you value your children/schools enough (just as in the past) to pay more in property taxes. That choice has nothing to do with the new district othe than -perhaps- the timing.
I find it amazing that there are still those ignorant enough to suggest anyone pay for schools they've already paid for once!
I find it amazing that the remaining district team thinks that somehow the proposal put forth by good negotiaion was "not fair" even though their people worked hard for an equitable solution.
Getting 2/3 of everything when you've barely paid for 1/3 of it isn't such a bad deal. Getting 67% of everything for a mere 57% of the students isn't such a bad deal. Either way, the west comes out ahead.
The only part of the agreement the west-side didn't like? Letting the very taxpayers that will be paying $112 million in taxes over the next 15 years actually have access to their own taxes....

Now, how do you define "greed" again?!

Whineblog,

As long as everyone pays for the bond no one will be paying extra. However the East wants out of the bond leaving the West with the entire remaining bill. Don't you see that? The schools will be finished about the time the split is to be finalized. They have to be paid for. If The East gets the cash that was supposed to pay for the building, how else will JSD pay for it?

Greed is demanding money that is being currently used for schools being built because they aren't the ones in your neighborhood, despite having voted for the bond in 2003. Greed is fully knowing that by taking that money those schools cannot be completed. Greed is caring only about yourself. That describes the few who callously dsired the split, then went after the cash.

The previous poster says the West comes out ahead by this. They don't come out ahead even if the cash is off the table. The District infrastructure is almost exclusively on the East. That has to built on the West for it to be "even".

The small group (equal number from each transition team) presented a proposal to divide up JSD assets to both East and West. The full West side transition team then met (when their 2 reps from the small group could not attend) and voted to reject the proposal. The $112 million has nothing to do with the bond (which, by the way, was presented to voters in 2003 as giving some money for a middle school in Draper, which was then taken away to fund 8 schools on the West side, which is unfair in itself, but another story for another day)but represents liquid assets that could be easily transferrable (in lieu of land, etc) to the East. Still, with this "payoff", the West is getting 2/3 of the valued assets while the East gets only 1/3. Re the date, the transition teams (by law) are to complete their divisions of assets by Aug 1 2008. During the last hours of the legislature, the date (which would identify which assets are to be divided) was changed to Nov 2009 - 3 mos after the new district begins its education services and more than 1 year after the transition team finishes.

George,

The 112 comes from the 196 million in bonds issued last year as part of the 2003 Bond election. That has been stated numerous times in the news. If that information isn't correct, could you inform the media?

While it is sad the Draper Middle school had to be shelved, something had to give when needs were considered. This always happens as costs go up, and districts wait to build because the operating costs would be too high till the school is built. It happened the last bond too. Instead of trying to justify why the East should get more (while ignoring that it has less kids to educate), why not put a bond election out so the school can be built?

Keep in mind that the money being talked about is going to be spent on the current projects before the date you stated. Those schools will be complete and filled with students.

Let's see if this really adds up.

East
119 Million in Bond money
All schools in the new boundary
All District Offices
Alt HS
Special Program Center at 9400 S.
Parking Garage

West
76 Million in Bond money
All schools in the new boundary
Special Program Center on Redwood
Alt HS currently being built

Seems to me this proposal isn't balanced at all. The East get all the District infrastructure and the majority of cash for current building projects. The West that is building with that bond money the East wants will still have to make up the 115 million shortfall as well as build a new headquarters. No court would ever agree this is a fair proposal.

George,

The original legislation had the split date of 2007 despite the split not occurring until 2009. The original date made no sense. It is like dividing the assets of Grandpa before he dies, ignoring the changes in his assets to pay for medical bills, nursing homes, assisted living, or whatever. It makes sense to split the assets based on what is there versus what was there 15 months prior to his death.

The East side wanted to split and incur the costs, so let them go and have a good time. They want to have their cake and eat it too by changing the rules after they voted to split, to let them deal with the consequences of their choices. That education will be valuable lesson for their kids to not make choices until facts are known.