Many voters in Alpine School District will likely have a ballot initiative to consider this fall: Should Alpine School District be reconfigured into smaller districts? At the time of this writing, nothing is on the ballot, but several potential initiatives are moving forward.
ASD Study
For several months now, the ASD Board has been researching potential split options. An out-of-state group, MGT Consulting, was hired to study the issue, present options to the board, and hold public meetings. They presented six split options that showed potential tax increases for certain areas. They also conducted an online survey to see how residents felt about it. Most survey respondents said that ASD does a good job and that they did not want a split. Yet a strong majority do want it on the ballot so the voting public can have a say. A majority also said they would prefer a two-way split instead of a three-way split.
However, the study has been criticized for a couple of reasons. First, the numbers produced by MGT did not include capital costs, like school building needs, and were based on previous years’ data. These numbers were later updated by ASD administration to reflect capital needs. Second, the survey was not a poll, where voters across the district are randomly selected. It was sent out primarily to parents and staff of ASD, allowed for multiple responses per individual, and over half of the 11,000 responses indicated that they were employees of the district.
Interlocal Initiatives
After MGT reported their findings, the board was poised to move forward researching one or two options. But before a vote could take place, the mayors and city councils of communities in the West (Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain, Cedar Fort, and Fairfield) unanimously voted to pursue an interlocal agreement to create their own district.
An interlocal initiative would require approval only from the citizens of the respective cities. This could potentially make it easier for the communities to form their own district. Meanwhile, any initiative put forward by the ASD board would have to be voted on and approved by the entire district. UPDATE 6/19/2024: The Utah Legislature voted overwhelmingly to remove the ability for the ASD Board to put an initiative on the ballot, to avoid confusing voters. This means that only residents of cities that are part of an interlocal will have the ability to vote on a district division.
Once the West had voted to pursue researching the initiative, the mayors and city councils in the Central area (Lehi, American Fork, Alpine, Highland, Cedar Hills, and part of Draper) also unanimously voted to research forming their own district. This would leave the East (Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Orem, and Vineyard) as the only cities to not form an interlocal agreement.
School Board Actions
Following the actions of the cities, the ASD board voted 4-3 to continue studying a two way split with the West becoming their own district, but the rest (from Lehi to Orem) remaining as one. The dissenting 3 board members are all from the west side of the district, including Lehi. They expressed frustration with the lack of representation on the board for their communities, especially concerning the overcrowding at their schools. The 4 board members voting to continue studying a two way split affirmed that ASD is a strong, fiscally responsible district that can provide the quality education that students need. Board members Ada Wilson and Mark Clement have stated publicly several times that their opinion is that the district should not split at all.
Opposition to splitting
Opponents of a district reconfiguration point to the successes of the district in running a tight budget and keeping costs low compared to other Utah school districts. They believe that taxes will increase substantially in any split. They have also pointed out that while bonds benefit mostly the building needs of the West, the East benefits from the high number of students so they can keep school sizes lower. East side board members point to the district’s AAA bond rating and high academics as evidence the district is doing well and will serve the population moving forward. Many express concerns about the difficult process of reconfiguration, and point to the Canyons/Jordan district reconfiguration over a decade ago as a bad example. They also express concerns about losing programs the district currently maintains.
Support of Reconfiguration
Proponents of splitting the district express concerns about a lack of representation, building needs, and the long term viability of a large and growing district. Proponents from the East have already seen schools close and are worried about more schools on a watch list, in addition to older schools that have unaddressed seismic concerns. Split proponents from the West say the district has not kept up with growth and worry that future bonds will have to appease all sides of the district to pass or they can’t build the schools they desperately need. Central proponents of a split say their areas will continue to grow as well, and without the support of the West they will still have even worse representation on the board and won’t be able to build the schools they need.
In the midst of all this, there is also speculation on what would happen if multiple, competing items are put on the ballot. The legislature may be called into a special session to determine which ballot initiative would prevail. See update below:
Updates as of June 25, 2024
The Utah Legislature voted on June 19, 2024 to not allow ASD to put a reconfiguration option on the ballot. This means that only the residents of the 2 interlocal agreements (West: Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, Fairfield, Cedar Fort) (Central: Lehi, American Fork, Highland, Alpine, Cedar Hills, part of Draper) will be able to vote on whether to form their own district. The city councils of PG, Orem, Lindon, and Vineyard have not yet entered into an agreement to either study or vote on the issue.
Due to the conflict between proposals, the legislature had to choose between the interlocal agreements or the district initiative, or the issue would have potentially been decided by the courts. Part of the reason they chose to not allow a district option is because the board was split 4-3 on whether to proceed. Additionally, the members most opposed to splitting voted in favor of the proposal, while the members in favor of a split voted against continuing. Several residents, board members, and elected officials spoke both in favor and opposed to the bill.
Additional Data and Charts to Consider
Finally, there are some important data points that may help residents as they study the issue:
- According to the MGT report, 64% of ASD revenue comes from the state on a per-pupil basis. 23% comes from property taxes. This amount may fluctuate each year, but most of ASD funding comes from the state.
- In a three-way split, the West district would have 24,184 students (11th largest in Utah), the Central district would have about 34,812 (6th largest), while the East would have about 25,672 (9th largest). A two-way split would have one district from Lehi to Orem with about 60,484 (2nd largest), and the West district would still be 24,184.
- Orem and Lehi make up the largest contributors to property tax in the district, with each providing about 20%. Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs are the next highest contributors with about 10% each.
- An ASD estimated $512 million bond district-wide (no split) would raise taxes for all areas by $179.39 per household per year.
- In a proposed 2-way split, a $277 million bond would be for the West, at a cost of $522.71 per household per year, while the East would have a $235 million bond would cost $101.11 per household per year.
- In a proposed 3-way split, the bond would be the same for the west. The Central would have a $110 million bond at $85.49 per household, and the East would have a $125 million bond for $120.49 per household.
- Calculations for overhead expenses are all based on assumptions, so be aware of those assumptions for any proposed costs put forward by any group. These costs would be determined by future school boards that would be elected only if a district reconfiguration was approved by voters.
- The West Interlocal Agreement study can be found at https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1129633.pdf
- The Central Interlocal Agreement has a website at https://centralschooldistrict.org/. There you can find links to the feasibility study and presentation, as well as the resolutions for each city.