Voters could see a proposal to split Utah’s largest school district into either two or three smaller districts on November ballots, though which pitch may make it to voters has yet to be determined.
Alpine School District board leaders on Tuesday narrowed down six potential district split options to just two. Those final choices involve dividing Alpine into two or three smaller districts.
Ultimately, only one option can be presented to voters. But in the meantime, both options will be submitted to the Utah County clerk for certification. That certification will initiate a state-mandated 45-day public comment period for each option, after which board leaders plan to make a final determination on July 12.
The decision to settle on a two- and three-way split option this week comes after MGT, a Florida-based consulting firm hired by the district to perform a reconfiguration study, strongly recommended that the board only focus on two separate two-way split proposals.
The firm cautioned against considering a three-way split because of limited community support and what they considered a higher risk of complications.
“A three-way [split] in terms of splitting your resources and assets might be 10 times as hard,” Lance Richards, educational performance manager for MGT, told board leaders last month.
The two scenarios MGT recommended both involved dividing Alpine into two separate districts — one to the east, and one to the west. The only difference was whether Lehi would be placed in the east or west.
Board leaders opted to move forward with the two-way split option that would situate Lehi in the east. But the second option they decided to consider would divide Alpine in three ways: east, west and central.
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
Why consider a three-way split?
Board members said the decision to explore a three-way split stemmed from a desire to offer the public and the 13 municipalities that stand to be impacted different choices.
“I really do believe that if everybody here is invested in our students — keeping them first, trying to take care of our teachers — that we’ll do the right thing and will give people two options worth of information,” said board member Stacy Bateman on Tuesday.
Board member Joylin Lincoln agreed.
“We owe it to the elected officials that represent people, just like the seven of us do, to continue to study both a two-district reconfiguration and a three-district reconfiguration,” Lincoln said.
But board member Mark Clement cautioned that leaders should keep the process as simple as possible.
“As I look for what would be the most effective [for] public comment, I think we need to be focused,” Clement said. “I am less convinced that having multiple options that we are gathering public input on would be as effective.”
Residents prefer keeping district whole
Residents have overwhelmingly said they would prefer to keep the district as one, according to in-person and online survey data collected by MGT. Around 11,000 residents and district staff participated.
Alpine school district officials also have said as much.
“It is our recommendation that the district remain as a one consolidated district,” Superintendent Shane Farnsworth said Tuesday. “We believe that that is the best configuration to best meet the needs of all students.”
Despite the strong support to remain unified, about 60% of survey respondents felt that the final decision should be left up to voters.
“Our patrons want an initiative on the ballot,” Farnsworth said Tuesday, citing the survey. “We understand that desire.”
In that case, Farnsworth said that if the board proceeds with placing a split proposal on the ballot, the district believes the two-way split scenario would be the most beneficial.
Rich Stowell, a spokesperson for the district, said it is important to the district that voters get the final say.
“Our district staff believes strongly that remaining as a single consolidated district is in the best interest of students,” Stowell said. “That said, we also think there’s value in hearing what voters think.”
The board will introduce the two options to the public May 14, followed by two public feedback sessions scheduled for June 11 and June 25. A final vote will be held July 12.
