Comments about ‘Jordan District split plan rejected’

That was the smart thing to do. Paying the greedy East side all that extra cash would be foolish.

No doubt taxes will still go up everywhere in the county for this. We still are waiting for the program cuts. Could Driver's Ed. survive? What about the unique special education programs that pool students from the entire district? Will they be building a South Valley equivalent on the East side?

None of these factors were taken into consideration on the impact analysis.

When will the Brighton feeder area lose its next school to declining enrollment?

To all of you on the eastside who voted for the split......YOUR taxes will be going up as well. All so that a select few can have their own little kingdom.

Four reasonable people, two from the west side and two from the east side, unanimously put forward this proposal. These four individuals determined that the only way to resolve the issue was in the compromise language they put forward. The rejection of this compromise will throw the entire process into the hands of three arbitrators. The result will be an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration costs and months of uncertainty and delay. What does the west transition team hope to gain by that? They hope that three unbiased arbitrators will come to a conclusion that is dramatically different than the one reached by a panel of four negotiators. Maybe they will pick up $100 million in the gamble. Maybe they will lose $100 million in the gamble. The most likely scenario is that little will change from the proposal put forward by the negotiating team. There seems to be a good chance that a team of three will see the same issues discovered by the team of four. Several months and several hundred thousand dollars later we will likely be right back at the same solution. A smart thing to do? I don't think so.

As an east-side resident, I voted for the bond in 2003, knowing full well that it would primary build schools on the west side. All you have to do is drive west of the river and you can see how fast that part of the valley is growing. The bond money should not even be an issue for dividing assets. Ultimately, I want what is best for ALL students, not just those in the new school district. This doesn't sound fair to anyone, especially my neighbors and their kids who live on the west side. There has to be a better solution than this...

It sounds like both sides are being like crabs in a bucket. Let's get something that is good for both sides and move on!

I appreciate your sympathies for those of us living on the West side. I wish moe of your neighbors had as munch caring and common sense as you do.
Unfortunately, your neighbors and your friends and your legislators don't care about you or your common sense and caring.
If you really feel this way, tell Carlene Walker she created a mess. Hold her accountable.
Thanks, I know you are a good person.

Dr. Haws says: they couldn't sign off on agreeing to pay back the new east-side school district $112 million from a bond. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no pay back. There is only a division of assets. There have been two proposals put forward. One by the Jordan School District administration (that was generally accepted by west side transition team members) and one put forward by the joint negotiating teams. Both proposals determined that given the factors allowed under the law, a fair and equitable allocation of assets and liabilities should allocate 50% to the west and 50% to the east. The law makes clear that a fair and equitable allocation must be made for all assets and liabilities. Is cash an asset? How can you argue that allocating the fair and equitable portion of a cash asset represents a pay back? There is no provision in the law that allows any cash asset to be excluded from consideration. Even if you hurry up and convert the cash asset into a building, the law requires the value of buildings be considered an asset in the allocation. Either way, you have an asset that must be allocated.

In the final analysis, the compromise reached by negotiating teams allocated about 1/3 of the net assets to the east district and 2/3 of the net assets to the west district. A district with 43% of the students gets 33% of the assets and is called greedy. The west rejects a proposal that gives them 67% of the assets and only requires them to educate 57% of the students. Who is being greedy?

"How do we say to the patrons, 'We're going to enter into an agreement and commit the next board of education to pay the east side $112 million,'. Here is a novel idea. Tell them the truth. Tell them that the east side is entitled to the $112 million (plus interest) they will pay in taxes over the next 15 years. That is what we are talking about here. On the flip side, how can you tell east side tax payers that their tax bill will go up this year (which it will), and that they will pay taxes to the west side for the next 15 years (which they will). And by the way Mr./Ms. taxpayer, not one penny of that money will go to the schools in your district. Sure...you will also be required to pay additional taxes to build new buildings on the east side. Sure...we will be sending them $3.5 million every year. Sure...our building costs will exceed theirs. How do you sell that story?

Where did all of those right-to-vote-patriots go when it came time to turn down equalization funds? I keep seeing the argument from the west side that says: If this has the potential to impact my taxes, I should get to vote. It surprises me that none of these same right-to-vote-patriots has stepped forward to reject the money that will come from the county wide equalization program created this year. Salt Lake City did not get to vote on equalization, and they will be required to send the west side of the Jordan District $6 million dollars per year (under current projections). Salt Lake City projects a tax increase to make this payment. You west side folks who argue for your right to vote on all matters that affect taxation should turn this money down.

I can't believe the west side team rejected this proposal at a meeting when their own members who negotiated this plan weren't even present to speak up about why such a plan was negotiated. Further, Dr. Hawes is incorrect in this article, what was proposed is not a payback, but is a division of assets. If the plan is read in more detail, it is clear what was negotiated does not require an automatic tax raise. However, with their rejection of this compromise, they may have to do just that depending on what the arbitrators decide.

It is a division of liabilities not assets. That is the problem. The bonds have been issued and buiilding begun so that debt which we all entered in 2003 by vote is a liability that the East side is still obligated to pay.

Those who touted the split stated they'd be paying for those bonds the next fifteen years. Now all of a sudden they want out? The liability remains with all those who voted for the bond issue in 2003 regardless of a new taxing entity. I am glad the team rejected this unfair proposal because the bonds are no longer assets but liabilities.

Greedy: You claim "negotiating teams allocated about 1/3 of the net assets to the east district and 2/3 of the net assets to the west district." Please explain what monetary value an "asset" has to a school district. Are you suggesting the west-side district could simply sell off a few schools to pay the $112 million debt to the east? No, the west still needs to educate its students. Schools are not like business assets. They can't just be sold off and they don't generete revenue. Monetary value of school buildings has no relevance whatsoever to their value to a school district. The only value a school building has to a school board is the number of students it can educate.

I'm putting my bet on the idea that arbitrators will realize the west turned down a great deal, will come up with a plan fair and equitable to all, and the west side will like that even less.

Greedy has his facts right, BTW.

The bonds are a liability. The cash is an asset. The east side made no bones about paying for 57% of the bonds. As a matter of fact, the east side will be paying 57% of over $300 million in bonds. People confuse the last $196 million of bond debt with the total amount. The east will pay its fair share of the total debt. That is the liability side of the issue.

When the new east district was created, in addition to other cash, the Jordan School District had $196 Million dollars in recently received cash (having just received it several weeks before). There is no question that this cash was an asset. Some of that cash was spent on buildings. There is no question that these buildings are assets. Today, some of these assets are cash, and some of these assets are buildings, but unless they frittered it away, both buildings and cash remain assets of the district.

If it is a cash asset, it must be valued and allocated. If it is a building asset, it must be valued and allocated. Find me a reference in the law that says any cash should not be allocated.

If your sick of this dog and pony show...MOVE that is what I am doing. I am sick of the whole thing. I refuse to pay higher taxes for an already substanard district.

Harvey: The law says that transition teams are to allocate the monetary value of the assets. How can you claim that transition teams have any mandate outside of determining how to split assets and liabilities? I am not suggesting that the west-side district sell off schools. I'm suggesting that they keep all of their schools. I'm suggesting that $112 million dollars of cash THAT IS CURRENTLY IN JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT BANK ACCOUNTS go to the east side. I'm also suggesting that an amount of cash sufficient to get started, which is also CURRENTLY IN JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT BANK ACCOUNTS, be allocated to the west district. We are not talking about generating new money. We are talking about the money that is sitting in the bank today. Your hype about selling buildings and being unable to educate students is all a lot of political hot air. The misinformation only deepens the divide. It does not change the fact that an asset is still an asset. Like it or not, the asset allocation is about distributing a fair and equitable portion of the monetary value of assets.

It seems to me that both sides of this situation are acting like children. Neither side will accept the solution reached by their own people. They each appointed two of their own members to sort this out and they can't even accept that solution. They should be embarrassed.

It appears that political agendas are more important than right and wrong. The best thing that can happen here is to bring in some adult supervision. Send both transition teams packing and let some unbiased, non-political adults determine the outcome.

Sorry, you are wrong. The law lists several factors the transition teams are to consider (student population, assessed valuation, historical usage) but does NOT mention monetary value of property.

Also, if you read the proposal, you'll note that it specifically mentions a long-term payment plan for the $112 million. That certainly does not indicate to me the money is "in Jordan School District bank accounts" as you indicate. If you think the remaining district will be sitting on loads of excess cash, you obviously don't understand the condition of Utah school districts.

I find the whole thing funny. I am glad I do not belong or work in this district. East side wants the split. Now they are crying because it is going to cost them. Good luck fools