Comments about ‘Jordan-west team aims to work out differences’

The East won't budge on that money. Neither should the West. With building already started, and the money likely spent before the split, giving the East 115 million greatly harms the viability of the remaining district.

The East was to get all the District offices, almost half the currently operating schools (45 of 91) and more than half the bond money. If they get that bond money they don't have to pay what they were obligated to for the 2003 vote and that doesn't jive with the current split law. Yes they have to 'pay' for their 115 million, but that wasn't what voters approved.

The West doesn't want to go to arbitration because it knows it won't win more concessions. The negotiated deal was just, and they know it. They still rejected it. Because of the spin put on it in the media, they feel they have to cry "unfair" even though it was fair.

They cry about a possible increase in their taxes. Well, everyone else in the county is going to get their taxes raised and then sent to the west side to "equalize things". Shouldn't they also?

The real problem is we have not put enough funding into buildings for growing areas, and this justified division is merely revealing the problem. The division is NOT the problem. In fact the problem has been made worse BECAUSE divisions haven't taken place, and we've grown too big.

Maybe they ought to call for another vote. Hopefully this fiasco will show others a better path.

Melissa Johnson flat out misrepresents the truth in this article. The west side is not facing a 30% tax increase due to the split. The feasibility study stated that there could be a 16-20% tax increase assuming the west side citizens vote to tax themselves by issuing more bonds and assuming the dramatic growth continues (which it hasn't). If she were as well informed on this issue as she should be by being on that asset division team, she would have known this.

Further, if the west side wants to work this out without going to arbitration, why did they reject this proposed compromise at a meeting when their own two team members who put forward this negotiated compromise weren't even present to discuss the merits of this compromise?

How is the east going to lower class sizes and increase spending? It's the same school, the same kids, the same teachers, just a different name for the district.

aan14,
You are right that the feasibility study shows a less than 30% tax increase but that is based on split where the west is not paying the east. If the west pays 110 mill. to the east, the tax will be closer to 30%.
So.
The east side decides to split. The west side gets a 30% tax increase while the east side taxes go down.

I have news. The growth on the west is coming from the east side, Salt Lake, etc. Two of my neighbors moved from Sandy, one from Salt Lake, and one from West Valley.

They rejected the proposal because it was unfair to the West. The East has less needs, yet they are asking for a lion's shair of the 2003 bond money even though that money will have been spent before the date. Anyone who believes that what the East wanted was fair is fooling themselves.

Tstu,

They just rid themselves of the West side students that have been commuting over to the East. That reduces class size but not fixed costs. As long as they keep schools open, overall cost per student goes up. The East have found a great way to increase costs while reducing quality. Good Job!!

It won't be all the same teachers. They are moving to the West side and out of the district. Some are moving to the East side. After the split will all this chaos and added expense be worth it?

Ms Johnson is actually quite well informed on the issue, the problem is she tends to wrest statistics and information to her advantage and won't acknowledge another point of view. The 30% is grossly overstated in the overall scheme of things. Even it the -potential- tax rate were 30% the total relative tax burden on the west side would still be only about half of that that the rest of the districts in the county historically paid.

While the west considers the $112 million a hurdle, the article (and many others) conveniently ignore that the proposal allocated 2/3 of all JSD assets to the west district. Even Ms. Johnson has claimed "it ought to be divided upon student population" and the west has only 57% of the students.

The purpose of the proposal was to have TWO viable districts. The west out-and-out rejected that deal, now seems to be rethinking their position. Good for them, but a little thought a little earlier would have been better for all.

Call for another vote?? You must be in the group that figures we should re-do the 2000 election and see if Mr. Gore wins the 2nd time?!?!

The east has less needs?!! You've got to be kidding. Your ignorance is appaling. Housing students in unsafe/not-to-code buildinng isn't a need?

Providing a basic environmentally stable school isn't a need? (Well, it isn't on the west side were most of the buildings are not in a state of disrepair, therefore it's OK to dismiss it?)

Too bad all the involved citizens didn't have a vote.

People from the east-side continue to tout the fact the proposal allocates 1/3 the value of assets to the east and 2/3 to the west. What monetary value do schools have to a district? You act as if the west can simply "sell" a school or two to pay a debt to the east. Wrong.

The only monetary value a school has to a district is how many students it can educate. That's why the law says schools are allocated to the district in which they are located. The law does NOT say the district that ends up with more monetary value of schools must pay the other for them.

Anon,

Having been in all the schools on both sides of the district, I can say the East side schools are safe, less crowded and have few that need replacing. Copperview was replaced with some of the bond money that the East is griping about. If I had my druthers I's tear down and rebuild only one elementary school on the East side, Midvale. Midvale and West Jordan Middle would be next on my list.

The students on the East side have it a whole lot better overall than the West. We stack kids so deep in some classrooms we aren't up to firecode. That is why we must build those schools on the West.

2/3rds?

Hardly.

46 schools for the West
No District offices
81 Million in Bond money to build schools

45 schools for the East
115 Million in Bond money to ???
2 District office buildings

I know that the West has more projects in the works, I believe around 22. That cannot be 2/3rds majority. The West would require doubling their current amount of schools to reach 2/3rds.

The schools on the East have higher value than the West because of property values. They also have fewer students. The Draper Elementary art collection is quite significant too. When this goes to arbitration, the West will be treated fairly instead of having to give up more.

aan14 and Ms Johnson

My information is not only accurate, it is derived from a study commissioned by the east side mayors and distributed to the public. (See pg. 86-87 and Tables 1 and 2 from the Feasibility Study) the same information was also distributed by the Jordan School District before the vote in Oct. 2007:

"An analysis of data contained in the feasibility studies indicates that, to maintain per-student funding for operations equal to that of the existing Jordan School District, an east-side district could reduce property taxes 26 percent, while the remaining west-side would need to raise property taxes 35 percent." (See the Jordan District website for a complete explanation of the tax impacts of a district split)

I am willing to cite my sources and sign my real name. What about you?

Melissa Johnson

To 1/3-vs.-2/3: You speak to the heart of the problem. While schools are needed and cannot nor should be uprooted, the fact is somebody had to pay for them, and since they cost millions of dollars that somebody had to pay for, they are assets.

Now, who paid for them? We all did, including the eastside -- which actually paid a larger percentage in taxes for them than the west. So they are assets that belong to the cumulative district and therefore, since the district is dividing their value must be divided as well.

Also, to "Reality Check": I really think you have your head in the sand. Look at the schools on the west-side. They are state-of-the-art. The district has spent a lot of money over the past decade on the west-side, not only considering the bond funds but in capital outlay as well. So much so, that it is estimated the west has more than $300 million more in value. Split that 50-50, and the west would leave with $50 million less off the top than what is being proposed. Split it 1/3 vs. 2/3 and it is exactly what the negotiating teams have proposed.

To Melissa Johnson: The feasibility study was done by Michael Bennett's company and.....his "analysis of the data"...Well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.....and his numbers were crunched because there were people on the eastside who wanted a specific type of result FROM those numbers. He gave them what they wanted. And, I know Mr. Bennett personally....He gave them what they wanted.

The title of this article is misleading. I don't think Ms Johnson nor Mr Haws have any desire to work out differences unless the final solution totally favors the West and totally disfavors the East. This becomes evident to me when they critcize and malign the recommendations of their 2 West-side negociators (Mr Horst and Mr Nielsen) and then take a formal vote to reject those recommendations at a meeting that neither Mr Horst nor Mr Nielsen can attend.

The problem is citing your source in the inability (not your fault) of including all the assumptions and background information on it. Ed's point of "lies, damn lies, and statistics" is well taken.

To quote a "worst case" scenario for the west (which is based on growth numbers already shown to be inaccurate in the first year of "projections") and a "best case" scenario for the east (not too many beleive the east will actually have a tax reduction!) is inequitable to say the least. Furthermore, the "reduction" in east taxes the feasibility study oft refers to are, in fact, only a reduction from the $800 million bond JSD's growth summit proposed (and that have not been voted upon and approved). So, the "decrease" in taxes is reallly only "less of an increase" not an actual decrease in dollars.

I'm not quoted in the article nor called out in the blogs by name so my name isn't as important. I applaud your willingness to sign in (I'll go with no ID SPAM and assume it's actually you).

Ciao