Questions & Answers

According to their discussion at the January retreat, the city council decided to look into the feasibility of forming a district before the bond vote this fall so that we would not be involved in a bond that may not bring comparable returns to Orem schools. Some members of the city council feel that Orem schools are being unfairly closed by the district and that Alpine School District is just too big. (1/7/22-1/8/22 Orem City Council Retreat - recording available here. The discussion about having a feasibility study starts at about 7:45:00. For those that are interested, there is also a discussion about hiring a new city council attorney after the district study discussion. As the new attorney was the one that hired DEC, the two discussions seem to be related.)

Not at this point. According to the Utah Code 53G-3-302, a group of cities can combine and enter into an interlocal agreement similar to how we are doing the city vote. A feasibility study would have to be done including the numbers from all cities, and the vote would be put on the ballot in each city. Since Orem city did not approach it in that way, this district split would only include Orem.

Once the new district is formed, there are a few solutions. Utah Code 53G-3-501 explains a few ways Lindon and/or Vineyard could be transferred from Alpine to Orem district:

• At least 4/5ths of the board members in each district approves the transfer, or

• A petition is presented to the county (approved by a majority of the board members of each school board or at least 15% of the electors in each of the districts)

Then, it would go to a general election vote again. They would be able to join the Orem district if voters in both Orem and the other city are in favor of the transfer.

So, it could happen down the road, but not at this time.

Mayor Young said that he did talk to the Lindon, Provo, and Vineyard mayors unofficially, but no official offer was made. Mayor Lundberg of Lindon also confirmed that they were not formally approached about the issue.

This is a topic the Alpine District reviews regularly. Here is the most recent district study I found - District Split Study (February 2021). It looks at the possibility of splitting into three areas (Lindon/Orem/Vineyard being one of those areas). There is also a study looking at the possibility of splitting into two areas - east and west. There is currently no timeline that I've been able to find for a split initiated by the district.

The superintendent would like to discuss the situation with Mayor Young. The City Council thinks that the district is planning to split in 2030. (1/7/22-1/8/22 Orem City Council Retreat - recording available here)

We cannot 'rejoin'. Instead, we would go through a process similar to the process we went through to split. We would go through the same process any two Utah districts would go through in order to combine, as outlined in Utah Code 53G-3-401. If I understand correctly, the two interested school boards or a voter petition would need to meet criteria that would put the vote on the ballot. The districts are consolidated if the majority of those voting in each district vote in favor of combining.

There are a few different answers to this question. On page 38 of the feasibility study, they state the following timeline:

• November 2022 - Voters decide whether to form our own Orem District

• November 2023 - Voters elect 7 new school board members

• July 2024 - Orem District begins operations

• School Year 2024-2025 - Classes begin in the new district!

However, normally, school boards are elected on even years (Utah Code 53G-3-302-3a(i). That means we would not elect our new school board until November 2024. The law also says that a district begins instruction in the second year after the election, which would be the fall of 2026:

• November 2022 - Voters decide whether to form our own Orem District

• November 2024 - Voters elect 7 new school board members

• July 2026 - Orem District begins operations

• School Year 2026-2027 - Classes begin in the new district!

However (again!), Utah Code 20A-1-203 says that a special school board election can take place in an odd year. That would look like this:

• November 2022 - Voters decide whether to form our own Orem District

• November 2023 - Voters elect 7 new school board members

• July 2025 - Orem District begins operations

• School Year 2025-2026 - Classes begin in the new district!

So, the answer is, we don't know. It would probably be the 2026-27 school year unless the city and the transition team decided it is worth the expense of a special election to elect our school board in 2023 and we 'open for business' in 2025.

The Alpine District has a formula to determine class sizes. Here is some information I got from school board representative Sara Hacken:

• Kindergarten - 46 (assuming 23 per half-day class)

• 1st grade - 26

• 2nd grade - 26

• 3rd grade - 29

• 4th grade - 30.2

• 5th grade - 31.14

• 6th grade - 31.14

• Junior High - 1 FTE for each 28.5 students

• High School - 1 FTE for each 29.5 students

If I understand correctly, they use a variety of ways to make this work. For example, they may combine grades or put aides in the classroom. It basically comes down to the grades at the school and the situation.

For example: What if your elementary school has 103 third graders? You could have 29 kids in one class, 29 in another, and 29 in a third. Then, you have 16 left over. You could hire another teacher and put 26 kids in each of four 3rd grade classes. Or, you could put 5 or 6 more kids in each class and add an aide to help out. Or, you could create a 3rd/4th split class with some of the extra 4th graders. Basically, it is figured out on a school by school basis.

The average 'cost' of a teacher is $104,537. This includes their salary, their retirement benefits, insurance plan, unemployment taxes, etc. Robert Smith, the Alpine District business administrator, told me that "to reduce the class size by 1.0 students per teacher, our current estimate is $9.4 million or 90 teacher FTEs multiplied by the current estimated cost for teachers." That would be the number for the entire district.

If we are looking at an Orem district, and we estimate 15,000 students, that would pay for about 500 FTE's (I'm not getting particular. I'm assuming 30 students per teacher and rounding Orem's enrollment to 15,000 for simplicity).

• 500 teachers = $52,268,500

If you want to lower the class sizes by 5 so that each teacher only has 25 students, you would need 600 teachers.

• 600 teachers = $62,722,200

So, a little over $10 million to lower the class size by 5. This is obviously over simplified, but it gives us a general idea.

Chapter 6 of the feasibility study talks about the availability of Specialty classes at our elementary schools. On page 198, we read, "ASD’s Specialty Classes appears to not be equally distributed to all elementary schools in the district. East side communities such as Orem, Lindon, Vineyard, Pleasant Grove and American Fork, as well as Title 1 funded students and schools in Orem, do not have the proportional access to district-funded Specialty Classes as in the higher socio-economic communities in Alpine’s west side communities of Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain and the north side communities of Lehi, Alpine, Highland, and Cedar Hills."

I asked Rob Smith, the Alpine District Business Administrator, and he explained that the number of specialty teacher hours is based on the number of FTE a school gets (which is based on the number of students in the school). Basically, a school gets one full-time Specialty FTE for each estimated 480 students at the school.

It is up to the administration at each school to decide how they want to use that Specialty FTE. A principal could hire an art teacher, a music teacher, a computer teacher, a PE teacher, an orchestra teacher, a drama teacher, or whatever they choose for specialties at that school. They could even split it up and hire a part-time PE teacher and a part-time computer teacher if they chose to.

There are exceptions to this rule. For example, a principal at a Title 1 school could choose to use the Title 1 money to hire more specialty teachers. Or, if the school provides a Dual Language program, those teachers are paid for by district and do not use Specialty FTE hours. But in general, larger schools have more specialty teachers simply because they have more students.

This spreadsheet shows the enrollment at each elementary school in Alpine District (as of October 2021). As you scroll through, you notice that Orem schools generally have fewer students than the other schools. The average number of students at an Alpine District elementary school is around 680-690 students. Most of our schools aren't near that size. Our smallest are Aspen at 380 students and Sharon at 332 students. Even Parkside (which is the combination of Geneva and Suncrest) only has 569. We simply have smaller schools and therefore fewer Specialty FTE hours available.

You are probably thinking of this statement by Sara Hacken at the Aug 2, 2022 city council meeting:

"Our high schools in Orem are the three smallest high schools in Alpine School District. They are so small that they do not generate enough WPU from the state to fully fund a program. That means that Alpine School District has given them extra teachers every year for quite a number of years. This coming year, Orem High is getting 6 extra teachers. Now ask yourself, if they did not get that support from Alpine, what 6 teachers would they cut? ... And that is also true of each of our other Orem high schools. These are tough decisions. But right now, Alpine School District is giving them those extra teachers."

The district looks at the number of students enrolled at a school and determines how many teachers to provide. In Alpine, schools get 1 FTE for each 28.5 students at a junior high and 1 FTE for each 29.5 students at a high school.

On page 21 of the Enrollment History & Projections document, we get the head count of students in Alpine High Schools as of October 2021:

• Mountain View had 1,412 students

• Orem had 1,267 students

• Timpanogos had 1,309 students

Almost all of the other traditional High Schools in Alpine District have over 2,000 students. The only one close to the low enrollment of Orem schools is Lehi with 1,815.

So, if a high school has 1,329 students (I used the average of our three schools), they get 45 FTEs (1 FTE per 29.5 students). That means 45 teachers (or more part-time teachers) at the school.

You would fill all the positions for core subjects ... math teachers, science teachers, language teachers, etc. Then with the extra FTE hours, you provide electives. I took a look at Timpanogos High School's faculty and staff, and there are teachers for 'advertising design', 'welding', 'ballroom', 'choir', 'business', 'photo & design', etc. The more students you have, the more FTE hours you get, and the more classes you can provide.

Because Orem schools have low enrollment, the district provides extra FTEs so that they can support a well-rounded program comparable to the programs offered in larger schools in the district. In our PTA council, Timpanogos HS gets 5.5 extra FTEs, which amounts to 33 extra classes a semester.

Here is a possible projection shared by a teacher at Timpanogos High:

Here is the downward spiral of compounding losses:

The moment Orem City separates itself from ASD, the extra FTEs and all the courses they provide are gone.

The moment Orem City draws a line in the sand between Orem and Lindon, THS loses as many as 350 students.

The moment Orem draws a line in the sand between Orem and Vineyard, Orem High and Mountain View also lose a significant number of students.

A loss of students means a further loss of FTEs which leads to a loss of more programs.

A loss of more programs leads to a loss of more students as families decide the grass is greener elsewhere and seek open-enrollment options with other districts and/or charter schools. The “feasibility” study tries to undercut this reality by saying secondary students have up to 6 years to choose schools, but will they choose a school that is cutting programs they are interested in?

The downward spiral of compounding losses continues until Orem City is forced to close one of the three high schools in an attempt to recover/consolidate programs, because it simply isn’t feasible to fund three high schools of 1000 students each...

To those who don’t work in a school, this downward spiral might seem far-fetched, but I can assure you it isn’t. This is how FTEs work. And right now Orem’s schools are reaping the rewards of being part of a larger district who cares about equity in programs and services.

Boundaries would be redrawn so that students living in Orem would be zoned in an Orem school and students living outside Orem would not. The new boundaries within Orem would be drawn by our new school board.

Here is a document from the district showing the number of Orem students attending Alpine schools outside of Orem and the number of students that attend schools in Orem but are not living in the boundaries of the city. These numbers are current as of the beginning of last school year (October 2021). Some numbers to consider:

• 58 Orem students attending Alpine Online would need a different online option

• 37 Orem students attending ATEC and 49 attending Dan Peterson (all special needs children) would need in-district resources or an agreement would have to be made with Alpine School District to continue attending these schools

• 56 Orem students attending Lindon Elementary, 505 attending Oak Canyon Jr High in Lindon, 69 attending PG High School, 158 attending Rocky Mountain Elementary, and 414 attending Vineyard Elementary would be moved simply because their school boundaries change

• The students attending Orem schools but residing outside of Orem would also be moved as their boundaries change: 201 at Aspen, 77 at Canyon View Jr High, 178 at Lakeridge Jr High, 287 at Mountain View HS, 234 at Orem HS, 310 at Timpanogos HS, and a few others

There are currently (as of Oct 2021) 1,611 students that reside in Orem and attend district schools outside of Orem and 1,888 students that reside outside of Orem but attend Orem schools.

The feasibility study explains that "The current law (Utah Code Ann. § 53A-2-206.5 through § 53A-2-213 Utah Admin. Code r. R277-437) gives the direction that students may have up to six years to attend schools in Alpine School District or Orem, from the date that the newly created city school district in Orem becomes the Legal Education Authority (LEA) responsible for the public education of its students. This date will begin in the 2024-2025 school year. Vineyard and Linden students who currently attend schools in Orem will have until the 2030-2031 school year to choose which district schools to attend." (p228).

Looking at the original Utah code 53G-3-S302 (these codes were renumbered in 2018), it looks like this law applies to secondary students that reside in Orem and attend outside of Orem. This is probably in place so that a child currently attending HS can finish their schooling and graduate from the same school they were attending before the split. The law does not state the students that live outside of Orem can still attend Orem schools. It also looks like it does not allow for students attending ALL and DLI schools outside of Orem to continue in those schools since those are Elementary schools (not secondary schools).

However, there is another law, Utah Code 53G-6-402, that allows all grades of students to attend any school in any district in Utah as long as they submit a written application and the school they wish to attend has not reached maximum enrollment. The law states, "A school is open for enrollment of nonresident students if the enrollment level is at or below the open enrollment threshold. If a school's enrollment falls below the open enrollment threshold, the local school board shall allow a nonresident student to enroll in the school. A local school board may allow enrollment of nonresident students in a school that is operating above the open enrollment threshold."

This means families that have students that wish to continue at their current school have options even if they are zoned to a different district.

This question is difficult to answer because "best education" differs for each child. Test scores, graduation rates, and other markers of a good education are probably more influenced by things like class sizes, parent involvement, and other teacher/student support. Those decisions are made by a school board and aren't dependent on district size.

There are many studies and opinions, unfortunately their findings differ. Here are a few studies and opinion papers you can look into.

** Economies of Scale for Large School Districts: A National Study with Local Implications by Frank W. Robertson. This is the 2007 study referenced by DEC in their feasibility study.

Realizing the Ideal School District Size: How District Size Affects Achievement and Expenditure by James Hayes. This is a dissertation published in 2018.

Solving Education Problems Means Rethinking Super-Sized Schools and Districts by David Cox. This is actually an article written specifically about the size of districts in Utah and is part of a collection of articles.

School District Size and Academic Performance: A Multi-Year Study by Bonnie Clariss Lenear.

Research on Optimal School District Size Provides Few Answers for District Division Committee by Molly Osborne Urquhart, March 29, 2018. This is a news article about a report made to the NC legislature.

Here is the suggestion of shared services recommended by DEC in the feasibility study:

"A newly formed city school district can share the cost of services and to avoid the duplicating of services with municipalities and neighboring school districts. A shared services agreement between the New District and a municipality can include, but are not limited to:

• Grounds and facilities maintenance
• Vehicle maintenance, garage & storage facilities
• Transportation (buses & maintenance)
• Information technology
• Accounting & Purchasing

Partnering with neighboring school district can result in immense savings and reduce costs. Examples of shared services between the New District and a neighboring school district can include, but are not limited to:

• Transportation (buses & vehicle maintenance);
• Purchasing & warehouse;
• A centralized Food Kitchen for the two school districts & shared Food Services;
• Special Education & Special Needs centralized school(s) for medically fragile & severely handicapped students, including mental health specialists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, and physical health services.
• Preschool;
• Shared instructional technology;
• Shared curriculum and staff development;
• Student Health (nurses & emotional health care workers, social workers, advocates);
• School Safety & Student Security;
• Title One Program Supervision & Services
• Various Arts & Specialty Classes
• Library/Media/Technology Services
• Before and After School programs."

(DEC Feasibility Study, pages 104-105. Beginning on page 106 of the study, DEC shares some examples of districts that participate in shared services programs.)

These programs and schools (Clear Creek, Dan Peterson, Alpine Online, East Shore Online, etc.) would not be available to Orem residents until and unless an agreement is made between the new Orem District and the existing Alpine District. The cost of these services would be determined by the districts and is not estimated in the DEC study.

Here is a statement from the Provo School District about the possibility of shared services. They were approached by DEC, but "due to significant logistical and management concerns, this discussion did not go very far". Any discussion would need to be between the leadership of the new district and Provo District. They would need to come up with a win-win solution that benefits both districts. That is why there is no way to estimate costs of these services now.

Chapter 2 of the feasibility study is about dropping test scores in Orem schools (beginning on page 114). There are graphs showing test scores for each of our schools, and they are declining. DEC sites two sources for test scores. The first source is the Alpine District (high school scores / middle school scores / elementary school scores) and the second is the Utah State Board of Education's Data Gateway.

There have since been concerns about DEC's interpretation of the study results (see 2KUTV news article), and the Assistant Superintendent of Student Learning for the Utah State Board of Education believes after looking at the study that DEC was comparing achievement data from two separate reporting tools. Still, it doesn't hurt to consider why test scores are declining. Here are a few possibilities:

• "The state of Utah changed the state test from SAGE to RISE in 2017. The new test was very different in both content and methodology. Schools were held harmless for the first year, at least, of the test, so teachers could have time to teach the new state standards that were on the test. Then in 2020-2022, COVID hit and students were out of school with sickness and were being quarantined during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. Absences skyrocketed and test scores reflected the fact that many students were not in class and were not receiving the instruction they needed." (Email exchange with Sara Hacken)

• "Covid is obviously a huge factor. But also, the population of Orem is changing. For example, we had a very large number of brand new immigrants in our schools last year. Way more than before. Just one example." (insight from an Orem elementary school teacher)

• "There are a lot of factors in testing. It is unclear what tests are referenced in the study. One reason that testing was low for OHS in 2021 was because of the schedule. That year tests were not given in their English or math classes but were given during the last period of the day and the students were able to leave when they finished. Since state tests cannot count on students grades, a significant number of students spent less than 10 minutes on an 80 minute test. This is one example of why test data by itself isn’t always the best measure of learning." (from an Orem High faculty member)

The Utah State Board of Education's Data Gateway is a huge site and includes information on tests around the state. The results I found are by district instead of city. The DEC report sites this as their source for Orem scores, but I couldn't find a place for scores by city. The site is huge, so I will try to visit again and figure it out. (Here's a helpful overview page)

But, here are some things I did find:

• 2019: Utah Average Composite Score: 194.7

• 2021: Utah Average Composite Score: 194.7

• 2022: Utah Average Composite Score: 194.6

• 2019: Alpine District Average Composite Score: 195.4

• 2021: Alpine District Average Composite Score: 197.1

• 2022: Alpine District Average Composite Score: 197.5

• It looks like our district is better than the Utah average and that the numbers are increasing.

District size does not seem to influence testing scores. I would think they are more influenced by things like parent involvement, class sizes, and other school-level differences. It is possible, if an Orem-only district was able to lower class sizes and change other environmental aspects at the school, that could improve test scores.

If you are doing your own research, you might want to check out this interesting website: The Nation's report Card. You can select a grade level, subject, and year and see how states compare to the national average. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer our question because it stops in 2019 and gives comparisons rather than numbers. But, you'll be happy to know that Utah generally does better than the national average, particularly in science.

Yes. The district has a legal obligation to meet the needs of Special Education students. The costs are likely to be higher without Alpine School District resources (district professionals that go from school to school, Dan Peterson and other schools, etc.), and therefore either taxes would need to go up or other programs would need to be cut in order to meet the needs of these students. A suggestion in the DEC Feasibility study is to enter into shared agreements with other districts for these services:

"There exists immense student benefits when employing shared service agreements. If a shared service agreement is entered with a neighboring school district, each district could focus on its strongest programs. For example, a school district may have an excellent program with a school staffed with specially trained professionals for medically fragile and/or severely handicapped students. Its neighboring school district may not have a similar school or the ability to provide the same quality of services to its students. Entering a shared service agreement to provide services for both school districts can become a cost-saver for both districts." (p106)

"The New District will provide the same level of student services that the student received in ASD. The student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) between the parents and the school district is the contract for such services. These sorts of facilities are vital to assisting youths progress towards a successful and joyful future, learning skills for self-confidence, self-discovery and ultimately self-support. As needs are addressed within the New District, DEC recommends that other districts be involved in shared services agreements and best practice-methods to appropriately and compassionately care for the needs of each individual. DEC recommends an inter-district committee be formed with these aims in mind. There can and should be crucial and caring relationships formed between the special needs individuals and teachers, as well as with other students that should not be confined within the boundaries of a district/community." (p235-236)

According to this document from the district, there are 292 Orem students receiving special education services at schools outside of Orem. There are 1,688 Orem students receiving special education services in Orem schools.

Here are some insights from our district board representatives:

"DISTRIBUTION - Understanding how Special Ed (SPED) funds are distributed is critical to this conversation. Similar to Title I funds, SPED dollars are received on a per student basis, but they are distributed by a district largely based on need. Because of student demographics, more funds are generally expended on Orem students than what they actually bring to the budget. Where do those additional funds come from? From lower-needs areas throughout ASD’s 13 sister cities.

"PREVALENCE RATE - According to state law, there is a funding cap placed on each district for SPED funding, i.e. the SPED budget will be funded for no more than 14% of the total enrollment. This is called the prevalence rate. Some schools are well under this cap, but other schools exceed it. If Orem schools were to be part of an independent school district, the prevalence rate today would be 13.6%, having grown +.6 from the previous year. Five Orem schools currently exceed the 14% prevalence number. If the demand for services continues to grow at the current rate, AND if Orem students are no longer accepted into programs outside Orem, within a year an Orem-only district would almost certainly exceed 14% and have to provide services for which no state funds are available, thus having to absorb those costs, in addition to bearing the full burden of Orem SPED students on its own.

"ACHIEVEMENT GAP - Next to our English language learners, our students with disabilities account for the largest academic achievement gaps in our Orem schools. Meeting these student needs must be a priority. Whether it be a few minutes of one-on-one time with a trained learning interventionist, a special class for occupational therapy, or all-day services for a high needs child, our SPED specialists are miracle workers who are supporting families every day! The ideal situation is to develop long-term connections with the neighborhoods in which these students’ services are offered, which will result in a shared commitment to their well-being and success. We believe that these children and their families will be better served by remaining a part of the Alpine School District."

Sara Hacken and Ada Wilson

That number is probably because of this slide shared at the July 19th DEC presentation.

The slide shows that in 2021, students in Orem:

• 14,724 attend Alpine School District schools in Orem

• 625 attend Maeser Preparatory Academy

• 512 attend Noah Webster

• 639 attend UCAS

• 103 attend Arches

• 1,044 are homeschooled

If you add all those numbers, you get that there are 17, 647 total Orem students, and 2,923 of those students select to attend a charter school or homeschool rather than attend ASD. That is 16.6%, or 1 in 6.

In their study, DEC took the number of students in Orem, but compared it to the total number of students attending these charter schools - not the number of Orem students attending these schools. They also used a misleading inflated homeschool student number. The number of students electing homeschooling jumped dramatically in the fall of 2021 because of Covid. Unfortunately, that is the most recent number available.

In the Enrollment History & Projections document available on the ASD website, you find that, as of October 2021, there are 83,999 students attending Alpine School District (p73) and 11,245 students attending charter schools within the district boundaries (p83). I asked for a homeschool number, and a district board member told me there were 5,890 district students choosing to homeschool as of Oct 2021.

So, with a total of 101,134 students in the Alpine District boundaries:

• 11,245 (11.1%) are attending a charter school

• 5,890 (5.8%) are homeschooled

• 83,999 (83.1%) attend Alpine District Schools

I am in the process of contacting local charter schools to find out how many students are from Orem so that we can get Orem-only percentages. Check back!

Utah Law 53G-3-308 explains that "an employee of an existing district who is employed at a school that is transferred to the new district shall become an employee of the new district; and the local school board of the new district shall:

(i) have discretion in the hiring of all other staff;
(ii) adopt the personnel policies and practices of the existing district, including salary schedules and benefits; and
(iii) enter into agreements with employees of the new district, or their representatives, that have the same terms as those in the negotiated agreements between the existing district and its employees.

Basically, they work at the same school as they would have worked if we were still a part of the Alpine District, but their employer becomes the new district. Further down on the same page linked above it gives similar rights to district employees that become part of the new district.

Utah Code 53G-3-205 is the one that guarantees the new district's personnel will receive at least the same salary for one year. After the initial year, the salary would be negotiated with the district school board (just as it would be in the Alpine District).

The state supports the retirement plans for teachers. However, the Alpine District supplements that plan with additional money. The money set aside for those teachers would be transferred as assets to the new district. It would be up to the new Orem District school board to decide how to use that money and whether to continue the additional retirement bonuses. The money provided through the state retirement program would remain the same.

Those employees that work at a specific school would automatically transfer with the school to the new district (see previous question). However, many of the district employees are not directly linked to an individual school. For example, bus drivers have multiple routes, many of the nurses and para-professionals that work with students with disabilities have rotating schedules that take them to multiple schools, IT teams and others support a number of schools.

I asked Rob Smith (the district administrator) how those employees would be divided. He believes that the employee would stay with the district that supports the "largest portion of FTE". For example, if a bus driver drives three routes for Orem schools and one in Lindon, they would likely be transferred to the Orem district. Most likely, the transition teams or school boards from the Orem district and the Alpine district would sit down and look at needs, growth or decline, etc. and decide what makes the most sense for these employees.

You can usually find the Salary Schedule on district websites. Here are a few I looked up because they are near or comparable in size to what an Orem district would be. Basically, salary levels go up automatically with years taught and education level. Each year, you move up a step, but if you earn a master's degree or a doctorate degree, your salary automatically jumps up on the pay scale (or to a new "lane" on some schedules).

• Nebo School District 2022-23 Certified Salary Schedule - Teacher salary range is $50,369 (for a first year teacher with a Bachelor's Degree) to $94,213

• Odgen School District 2022-23 Licensed Employee Salary Schedule - Teacher Salary range is $53,014 (for a first year teacher with a Bachelor's Degree and a teaching license) to $95,014

• Provo City School District 2021-22 (could not find 2022-23) Licensed Salary Schedule - Teacher salary range is $45,500 (for a first year teacher with a Bachelor's Degree) to $89,900 (though at the bottom it says that increments continue indefinitely, which I assume means that you continue to get a $925 raise each year you teach)

• Alpine School District Teacher Salary Schedule 2022-23 - Alpine's is a little more difficult to read because pay is different for elementary vs. secondary. It looks like teacher salary range is $52,165 for first-year Elementary teachers and $50,085 for first-year Secondary teachers (with an option to skip a free period and receive $57,240). The high range is $108,394 for elementary school teachers and $116,941 for secondary school teachers that are willing to give up their free period.

These amounts are pre-tax, and I could not find information about benefits on the district sites. I have put the word out to ask teachers in different districts about benefits.

Response from a teacher at Timpanogos High School:

"I am a teacher at Timpanogos High School. My son is going into an elementary in Orem, and my wife just got hired to work at a school in Orem. I grew up in Orem, and in various times in my life, I have been a Bruin, a Tiger and a T-wolf. Needless to say, I’m very invested in the future of education in Orem.

"First of all, I like working for Alpine. I know that’s not every teacher’s experience, but I’ve been happy for the following reasons:

• I get good pay and benefits, compared to other districts.

• I feel free to engage in my own educational practices with limited interference.

• I have been supported by District and school admin, even in controversial decisions I have made.

• I have great financial support for my programs.

"For these reasons and many others, I know of other teachers who left jobs in other districts so they could work in Alpine. When I hear other teachers quitting their jobs because of administrative issues, I think, “Man, I’m glad I work where I do.” Again, I acknowledge that may not be every teacher’s experience, but it is my own.

"With all of that, I would love if the district I worked for could pay me more, give me more freedom and support, and provide more for my programs. But I would never want to risk the good position I already have unless I was 100% confident this would actually happen. In short, in order for me as a teacher to support an Orem city school district, I would need 100% confidence that it would be better for all teachers than Alpine would."

Alpine District Policy #2240: Political Involvement Guidelines
Utah Code 20A-11-1205 and 20A-11-1206

It is against district policy for a teacher to share their opinion on a ballot issue using public resources (including classroom time). This rule applies to the city council and school board members as well. Now that splitting the district is a ballot issue, they cannot use city/school platforms to share their opinions.

Note that it is appropriate to share their opinions in a personal setting. A city council member (or teacher or schoolboard member) sharing their opinion on facebook is appropriate. A teacher sharing their opinion by sending out an email to parents using their school account is not. They can share their opinion as citizens of Orem, but not as public educators and representatives.

(If you are an Orem teacher or faculty member and would like to add your thoughts to our Community Opinions page anonymously, you can send an email to TimpanogosCouncilPTA@gmail.com.)

From schools.utah.gov/board

"The Utah State Board of Education (USBE) is a constitutionally established, elected, non-partisan body that exercises general control and supervision over the public education system in Utah, including establishing the state educational core standards, state educator licensing policies, and state high school graduation requirements."

• Core standards in education

• Licensing requirements for teachers and other professionals

• High School Graduation requirements

This is a summary of what the district is responsible for based on Utah Code 53G-4-402:

• Implement core standards set by the state

• Test to measure progress of each student

• Step in when a school/teacher/student needs remediation

• Implement training programs for school administrators

• Oversee school buildings, equipment, construction, renovations, etc.

• Select curriculum and make it readily accessible for parents to view

• There are many other things on this list (check the link above) such as implementing emergency response plans, determining school boundaries, etc.

It was more difficult to find what a principal does, and I didn't find anything in the Utah Code. I found a pretty good general list of principal responsibilities on this site, but it is not specific to our district or even our state. It is more of a resource for principals and not a documented source.

• Help shape the school vision to improve instruction & student experience

• Create a healthy learning environment

• Hire and support teachers and other school faculty

• Engage parents and coordinate with parents that have children with specific educational needs (IEP's and similar)

• Basically manage the school - oversee spending, scheduling, extracurricular specialties, etc.

In a district as large as Alpine, the school board has to focus on the needs of all 80,000+ students. In an Orem district, the same number of school board members can focus on just an estimated 15,000 students.

Here are a few examples of how this affects our community:

• In an Alpine district, the building and supply needs of Orem schools have to be balanced by structure and overcrowding needs across the district. In an Orem district, focus will be completely on our school buildings' needs - seismic safety, bleachers, security and maintenance, technology, etc.

• Parents with concerns about bell schedules, snow day closures, school environment, class sizes, discrimination, crosswalk placement, etc. can take their concerns to their school board representative. That certainly happens now, but in a smaller district the representatives can put more individualized focus on these students and families. They simply have less issues to deal with because of the smaller number of enrolled students each board member represents.

• Our board members would have more time to become more familiar with schools when they don't have so many to visit.

For most concerns, talking to the teacher and/or principal at your local school is the best place to start. If they cannot help or answer the question, your district school board representative is a good option. Their contact information and the area they represent are on the Alpine district page here (scroll to the bottom). The Orem representatives are Sara Hacken and Ada Wilson.

This issue does not specifically relate to an Orem-only district since a new district would have many of the same struggles as the existing district, but the discussion comes up often enough that it seems appropriate to address here.

The Alpine district Policy No. 6161 addresses this issue.

If a parent has a concern about a book in their child's library or classroom, the most appropriate thing to do is talk to the librarian/teacher. If concerns are not resolved, a parent can discuss the matter with the principal and fill out the "request for review" form. At that point, the book is removed from the shelves and placed in a restricted area (students must have parent permission to check out books from the restricted list). A school committee of parents and faculty then review the book and decide if it should be (1) returned to the shelf, (2) left in the restricted section, or (3) removed from the school.

There is a list of books that Alpine District has instructed every school to remove from library shelves and review. Most of the books on this list are not common in our libraries ... none of them are in elementary schools, and the junior highs and high schools generally have 0-5 of them on their shelves (now in the restricted section waiting review).

Did you know that you can see what books are available at your students' schools by checking the school websites? Look for a "library" link.

(Note: this policy 6161 is currently being reviewed by the school board and policy committee. There may be minor changes over the next few months.)

All schools in the State of Utah are required to teach the core standards as set by the Utah State Board of Education, and these are reviewed and updated on a rotating basis. You can see details about those standards on their website.

Local school districts may choose textbooks from an approved list as the standards change and as local purchasing contracts expire. In addition, local districts may approve use of various online resources. Local schools have some latitude in how the standards are taught within the district guidelines.

One of the documents shared with DEC and referenced in the feasibility study is a Seismic Vulnerability Assessment prepared in August of 2006.

Here are the Orem schools evaluated and their seismic performance rating. Schools may have multiple seismic ratings because of additions and renovations. Different parts of the school built at different times have different safety levels.

• Aspen Elementary (Fair)

• Bonneville Elementary (Fair/Good)

• Cascade Elementary (Poor/Fair)

• Cherry Hill Elementary (Very Poor/Fair/ Good)

• Foothill Elementary (Good)

• Geneva Elementary (Very Poor/Poor/Good)

• Hillcrest Elementary (Very Poor/Poor/Fair/Good)

• Northridge Elementary (Fair/Good)

• Orchard Elementary (Fair)

• Orem Elementary (Fair/Good)

• Sharon Elementary (Poor/Very Poor/Fair/Good)

• Scera Park Elementary (Very Poor/Fair)

• Suncrest Elementary (Fair)

• Vineyard Elementary (Good)

• Westmore Elementary (Very Poor/Good)

• Windsor Elementary (Very Poor/Fair/Good)

• Canyon View Jr High (Fair/Good)

• Lakeridge Jr High (Fair/Good)

• Orem Jr High (Very Poor/Poor/Fair/Good)

• Oak Canyon Jr High (Fair)

• Mountain View High (Fair/Good)

• Orem High (Very Poor/Poor/Fair/Good)

• Timpanogos High (Fair)

What has been done at these schools?

• Cascade Elementary - rebuilt using the 2016 ASD bond

• Cherry Hill Elementary - Seismic rebuild using the 2011 ASD bond

• Geneva Elementary - closed and combined with Suncrest students to form Parkside Elementary

• Hillcrest Elementary - closed and combined with Scera Park students in the new Centennial Elementary

• Scera Park Elementary - torn down and rebuilt as Centennial Elementary

• Westmore Elementary - Seismic rebuild/renovations using the 2011 ASD bond

• Orem High - Seismic rebuild using the 2006 ASD bond

Three schools remain on the list of vulnerable schools without renovations: Sharon Elementary, Windsor Elementary, and Orem Jr High.

A statement from Sara Hacken, our school board representative:

"In 2006, a study was completed to ascertain the seismic vulnerabilities of Utah schools. As a result of the study, Alpine created a prioritized list and a timeline for work to be finished. Alpine is the only district in the state of Utah to do so. There were 51 items on the list, and 37 have been completed. At this time FIVE schools have been rebuilt in Orem, and the others are on a capital project list for the district. We are actively working to get one more rebuild on this coming bond. The decisions for the various bond projects will be made in upcoming weeks, and a series of information meetings will be held across Alpine District to present bond information to stakeholders in the district."

Capital needs (buildings and building maintenance) can be paid for with a few different budgets:

• Capital Funds - this is an amount from the state that each district receives depending on the number of students they serve. A school board can also do a truth-in-taxation hearing to raise tax increments (as was recently done in Provo). Capital projects are one of the allowed designations for a tax increment. Alpine District uses the capital funds for maintenance and smaller projects. Recently, that budget has been used to provide satellite buildings for overcrowded schools, lay down turf on school playing fields, put a new roof at Timp HS, install security cameras etc. It can also be used for routine maintenance projects such as HVAC systems, new carpet, parking lots, etc.

• LBA Funds - basically a loan to oneself, using money from the General Fund to take care of capital needs, and then paying it back later. LBA funds are used when there are urgent needs that we do not have money for in the other funds. Recently, the district used LBA funds to build Centennial Elementary here in Orem.

• Bond - taking out a loan. Alpine takes out bonds to pay for the big projects such as new schools and major renovations. Recently, it was used to do security renovations at Aspen and Bonneville, as well as rebuilding Orem High School, Cherry Hill Elementary, Westmore Elementary, and Cascade Elementary.

• Private Donations. Donations are unusual, and are normally given for specific projects. For example, Alpine School District was able to have the Space Center renovated and updated with the help of $3million in private donations.

The three schools determined as seismically unsafe in the 2006 report and not renovated or rebuilt are Orem Jr High, Windsor Elementary, and Sharon Elementary.

Estimating a cost is difficult because the cost of construction is increasing and the extent of work necessary is unknown. However, here are some estimated amounts I received from the district.

• $130-$140M to build a secondary school.

• $35M to build an elementary school

• $7-$9M for a new high school multi-use facility

• $5M for a new HVAC system

• $4.5M for a new roof on a secondary school

• $1-1.5M for a new roof on an elementary school

It looks like you can expect about $35M to build a new elementary school and $130M to build a new Jr High. So, for two Elementary School and one Jr High, we are looking at around $200M.

It is also possible that these three schools don't need rebuilds. If it would be possible to make them safe with renovations instead, the cost could be lower.

There is no way to know the cost (and therefore the effect on taxes) until the new district board is in place and decides which programs and policies to implement in the new district. However, those that did the feasibility study did come up with possible projections, all of which show that a raise in taxes is inevitable.

Their baseline scenario, which assumes a district split and no new bonds, would necessitate a 4.2% tax increase (page 97). This is what DEC estimates it would cost to keep services in the new district the same as they are now as part of the existing district (to compensate for how Alpine currently subsidizes Orem schools). When they say this is the cost to keep services the same, we are assuming this means teacher benefits, SpEd services, ALL programs, class sizes, etc. They are not clear in the study what costs they investigated, so there is no way to know if district programs such as preschool, dual language programs and other things paid for with district budgets instead of school budgets are included or not.

On page 67 of the study, they estimate this 4.2% increase would provide a general fund budget of $147,300,274 for the 2023-24 school year. Provo's expected general fund expenditures for the same time is $157,342,660. DEC is predicting that we can keep our current programs in place, yet spend millions less than Provo (a district that has fewer students).

Here are details from a chart on page 52 of the study with per pupil spending as of October 2020:

• Alpine - 80,953 students ($1,707 property taxes per student)

• Canyons - 33,252 students ($3,918 property taxes per student)

• Jordan - 57,840 students ($1,845 property taxes per student)

• Murray - 5,991 students ($3,819 property taxes per student)

• Nebo - 35,454 students ($1,460 property taxes per student)

• Ogden - 10,475 students ($2,636 property taxes per student)

• Provo - 13,623 students ($2,779 property taxes per student)

Alpine spends less on each child's education than every district except Nebo. Provo's property taxes are higher by more than $1,000 per student, yet they still had to raise taxes & increased class sizes in order to pay their teachers competitively and do necessary building upgrades.

On page 239 of the study, DEC indicates that transportation costs (buses & their maintenance, storage, etc.) and new district start-up costs are not included in this amount. This 4.2% tax increase also does not include any bonds (used for buildings and renovations), which are voted on separately and addressed in questions below. It also does not include some of the other proposals made in the feasibility study for improving student test scores such as higher teacher pay and smaller class sizes. Those costs would be evaluated & budgeted by the new district board and would necessitate an even larger tax increase.

I can't answer this question definitively. After reading and studying information from a variety of sources, I find that figuring out how much it costs to run a district and where that money comes from is very complicated! I will share what I understand.

There are multiple budgets:

• The General Fund is the largest fund and is used for instruction and daily operation. This budget comes from local taxes, interest earnings, state funds, federal funds, and a few smaller local revenues. About 80% of this fund is used to pay teachers and other faculty members.

• The Capital Fund is state per-student money that is used for buildings and their maintenance.

• The Debt Service Fund is the fund used to pay for bonds (debt incurred to build and renovate)

I think it is pretty generally accepted that Orem receives more than our 'fair share' of the general fund (because of our low school enrollment), and less than our 'fair share' of the debt service fund (because most of the new schools are being built on the other side of the lake).

However, there is great disagreement on how much goes in and out - it is difficult to tell where the balance lies depending on who you talk to. Here are some numbers I found that seem pretty straightforward.

General Fund:

Here is a document put together by the district at the request of DEC. It says:

Orem Income:

• $99,521,240 - MSP Local & State

• $1,536,899 - Board Levy Excess

• $9,507,053 - Federal

• $1,831,565 - Local Income (student fees, media center charges, bus rental fees, building rental fees, etc.)

TOTAL INCOME: $112,396,757

Orem Expenses:

• $105,002,214 - Direct School Operation

• $28,871,148 - Support Depts

TOTAL EXPENSE: $133,873,361

Last year $21,476,604 more was spent on Orem schools and programs than would have come to an Orem district. We know that Orem schools cost more to run per student simply because of their enrollment. Here is a great resource recently released by the district with cost per student at Alpine Schools.

Capital Fund:

The DEC study estimates that the Orem District portion of the Capital Fund revenues would be approximately $5.8M per year 2023, and then grow at 3% per year (page 73). This is an amount allotted from the state fund for each district depending on the number of students they have. It is designed to be used for capital needs. If it has traditionally gone up 3% per year, then for the past 7 years the approximate amount an Orem district would have brought in is $36,009,617.

I found a list of capital projects done in Orem over the past 7 years (here and here). This spreadsheet includes all the capital projects done in Orem, including bond projects. Once I removed bond projects from this list (which will be taken into account in the next budget), the total capital spending in Orem for the past 7 years was $45,015,596.

So, over the past 7 years, $45,015,596 was spent on capital projects in Orem and about $36,009,617 would have been generated by an Orem District. Orem received $9,005,979 more than it generated, for an average of $1,286,568 a year.

Debt Service Fund (bonds)

The DEC study goes into great detail with this account (it is the one they focus on), so we will use their numbers.

On page 78, we see that Orem schools have received $163,024,872 in bond money from the 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016 bonds. I couldn't find anywhere in the study where it indicated how much we paid on those bonds in that time. On the OremsFuture site, it says that we paid $337M "to build new schools and pay off bond debt". We'll go with that. So, over the past 22 years, we paid $337,000,000 in debt service funds, and we only received $163,024,872 in school renovations and builds. That is a difference of $173,975,128 over the past 22 years, or $7,907,960 per year.

So, in my admittedly simplified view, here's what we give/get on an average year:

• In the General Fund, we get $21,476,604 more than we would have earned.

• In the Capital Fund, we get $1,286,568 per year more than we would have earned.

• In the Debt Service Fund, we pay $7,907,960 more than we receive.

$21,476,604+$1,286,568-$7,907,960 = $14,855,212 per year

If this is correct, we come out ahead by about $14,855,212 per year.

I'll be honest, a lot of people have been arguing these amounts. I could be way off!

The Alpine District has released their Expenditure by Location report with the 2021-22 numbers.

You can watch the 10/11/22 School Board Meeting where Rob Smith explains the numbers online (starting at about 1:03:00).

Rob Smith explains that the cost of running a school depends on many things, but two very important factors are how long the teachers have been teaching (because more experienced teachers receive more pay) and the number of students (schools with fewer students are generally more expensive per student). In the spreadsheet linked above, the average teacher years is in parenthesis after the school name. For example, when it says "Aspen (12.36 yrs.) it means that at Aspen Elementary the average teacher has been teaching for 12.36 years.

A few things to notice:

(1) Orem schools are generally the most expensive to run, probably because of their size. The average cost per student to run a high school in Alpine District is $8,041. Timpanogos is the most expensive at $9,031 per student, and the next two most expensive are Mountain View and then Orem High followed by Pleasant Grove. Every other high school in the district after these four are under $8,000 per student. You see the same trend with the Jr Highs (Lehi Jr is the most expensive, then Orem Jr, then Canyon View Jr).

(2) The cost to educate students at Geneva and Suncrest as separate schools in 2020-21 was $11,710 & $11,349 respectively. The combined school is Parkside, and the cost per student at Parkside this year was $9,610. Parkside had 607 kids last year, and they were about $2,000 less expensive per child to educate in the combined school - that's about $1.2M in savings because the schools were consolidated. Certainly the cost of school is not the most important thing to consider, but this means tough choices ahead when looking at Sharon Elementary (which costs $12,549 per student).

(3) The cost of educating children with special needs at Dan Peterson school is $26,062 per student. I knew the costs were higher, but I didn't realize how much higher.

Here is a spreadsheet provided to DEC by the district with Title 1 numbers as of 2021. The first column is the name of the school, then the total cost of running the school and the number of students. The last few columns show the total number of students, the number of students that are disadvantaged, and therefore the total amount of Title 1 money generated by that school. However, you see in the middle that very few schools actually receive that title 1 money. The only schools that do are those with higher concentration of disadvantaged students (the amounts they receive are highlighted yellow). I took this spreadsheet and condensed it to only Orem numbers. We have 4,545 students living in Orem that qualify for Title 1 funding. At $468.26 per student, that would generate $2,128,243 for an Orem district. However, Alpine provided $5,651,082 for Orem Title 1 funding.

That money was divided up among 8 schools - Bonneville, Cherry Hill, Geneva, Sharon, Suncrest, Westmore, Windsor, and Orem Jr. Geneva and Suncrest have since been combined to form Parkside, so the number has gone from 8 to 7 Title 1 schools in Orem.

If we form an Orem-only district, we would only receive the $2,128,243 allotted for Orem residents that qualify - less than half what we receive now as part of the Alpine District. DEC addresses this in the July 1st public meeting at about 42:00-47:00. They indicate that the amount coming into Orem from other district locations varies from $3M - $6M a year (which is why they propose a property tax increase of about 4.2% if we do split).

In the Popular Annual Financial Report from Alpine School District for the 2020-21 year, they share numbers and statistics in an easy-to-understand way. Here are a few numbers to help us figure out the cost:

• Total # of Students: 80,953

• General fund revenue per student: $7,643

• The national average spending per pupil is $13,381, and the Western US average spending per pupil is $12,208.

This number differs from the one below because it only includes General Fund expenditures - employee salaries and benefits, supplies such as textbooks and custodial supplies, utilities and similar professional services provided to the district, furniture and other assets, land, and some other things. The Utah Taxpayers Association releases a tax spending report each year. You can view them here. According to the report on the last year available (2019-20), this is how our cost to educate a child compares:

• Alpine District paid $9,693 per child

• Provo District paid $8,589 per child

• Odgen District paid $13,399 per child

This includes everything - teachers, transportation, building and renovating schools, etc. I chose Ogden and Provo for comparison, because they are city districts comparable in size to Orem. All of the districts in the state are included on the report.

Because the 2019-20 school year was such an unusual one, here are the numbers for 2018-19:

• Alpine District paid $9,391 per child

• Provo District paid $9,235 per child

• Odgen District paid $10,968 per child

A Performance Audit of Public Education Administrative Costs was conducted for the state of Utah and presented to the legislature in June of 2022. The chart on page 22 displays:

• Administrative costs per student in a charter school average $165

• Administrative costs per student in a small district (less than 4,000 students) average $338

• Administrative costs per student in a large district (more than 4,000 students) average $82

Please note that an Orem-only district would still be a larger district (with closer to 14,000 students) and would therefore fit in the category of lowest administrative costs on average. On page 16 of the audit, we see that Utah administrative costs are some of the lowest in the country.

On page 64 of the Alpine District's enrollment history report, you can see the trends in the number of children attending schools in Orem. Every one of the elementary schools in Orem have dropped in enrollment since 1995. Total elementary school enrollment has gone from 10,233 to 7,348 - down about 28%. I removed the numbers from Vineyard Elementary & Trailside Elementary because they would not be in the Orem District.

In the Feasibility Study, DEC estimates that Orem school population will go down by about 1,000 in the next 10 years (p.42), which is a rate of decline similar to what we see historically.

This does not take into account the residents of Orem that attend in other Alpine schools or the residents of other cities that attend in Orem. This year, those levels were pretty even (see "Where would the Vineyard and Lindon students currently attending Orem schools go if we split?" above for those numbers).

The DEC feasibility study estimates $5,840,000 for "projected capital needs for the initial start up" (page 73). Capital needs are buildings - new district offices, bus depots, and other district buildings are probably what is being referenced here.

This list of possible costs comes from news articles about the cost of the Jordan split (linked below).

• Cost of the feasibility study, ballot measure, the publicity & voter pamphlets, city staff hours, and legal support

• Hire of transition team to coordinate the process

• Hire of legal representation to divide the assets

• Coordinate and run a new school board member election

• Hire of district personnel - bus drivers, computer techs, superintendent and district office personnel, custodians, etc.

• New district offices, bus depot, warehouse and repair shops, and other district facilities

• Cost of replicating district services such as special needs programs, ALL, Concurrent Enrollment agreements, etc.

According to this Salt Lake Tribune article, the Jordan district split cost an estimated $33 million. This Daily Herald article puts the cost at $59 million, it looks like they included costs for both districts rather than just the new district.

Here is a link to some research done by an Orem community member about startup costs and how they are paid. He uses the feasibility study done for the Jordan split and compares it to the feasibility study done for Orem.

The city would pay start-up costs until the district is formed, and then the new district would reimburse the city up to $500,000. Alpine District would also be asked to contribute Orem's share of $9M to help cover startup costs (which would be about $1,575,000).

If the district splits, each district (the new Orem district and the Alpine District) would appoint a transition team. Those teams would work together to divide the assets according to the enrollment of students. Utah Code 53G-3-302 (scroll down to section 5) is pretty detailed about the process.

The Alpine School District would provide an inventory of all the existing assets and liabilities, then the transition teams would work to divide them. Buildings in Orem would automatically go with the Orem district, furniture and equipment would generally stay in their buildings. Other assets such as busses would be divided up according to the transportation needs of each district. There are specific guidelines that even the age and condition of the busses are taken into account.

Liabilities would also be divided up. This means Orem would continue to pay our share on existing debt.

There is misinformation floating around that an Orem District would own "20% of Dan Peterson school, 20% of the space center, etc." This is not accurate. The Alpine District would split all assets as determined by the transition teams - about 80% of the total assets would remain with the Alpine District, and about 20% of the total assets would transfer to an Orem District (the final percentage is determined by the number of students). That is total assets, not individual schools. Orem District would not own 20% Dan Peterson any more than Alpine would own 80% of Orem High School.

While researching to answer this question, I found this spreadsheet from the Alpine District that lists the square footage, acreage, classroom capacity, etc. of each school. It seems the division of the school buildings is pretty automatic, but I found the information interesting and thought I would include a link for those who would like to dig deeper.

Answer from Robert Smith, ASD business administrator:

"The Utah Code fortunately has an answer to your question. Basically, Orem residents would only have to pay for the portion of the bonds that are used to finance projects in Orem. If the split were approved by Orem voters and the bond were also approved by voters, the projects to be financed from the voter authorized bonds and the payment of the bonds issued to finance those projects will essentially be divided between the two districts. Orem residents will be responsible to pay debt service on the bonds for projects located in Orem as contained in the Plan of Finance (in the Voter Information Pamphlet) and the residents in the remaining Alpine School District will be responsible for paying debt service on the remainder of the bonds (and will get the benefit of the projects financed with those bonds). If the split were approved by Orem voters, the bonds to be paid by taxpayers in Orem cannot be issued until the new Orem school board approves it."

Alpine District School Board has voted to put a $595,000,000 bond on the November ballot. You can watch the Aug 9, 2022 board meeting here.

At 3:36:00 in the video, there is an explanation from the district business administrator about how they are able to issue a bond with little impact on taxes by "phasing" the bonds - taking out new loans when old ones are paid off.

In an email from Rob Smith (Alpine District's business administrator), April 2022:

"If the Board did determine a bond is needed and acted to place it on the ballot in November (if approved by voters), we would structure the financing in such a way to keep the impact to taxpayers within the current debt service tax rate or less.  This is what we have strived to do with each bond since the 2000 bond."

In the August 9th district board meeting, where the bond was approved by the board, it was explained that the district would have a team of people decide what would be covered by the bond. You can see Kimberly's remarks starting at 3:23:15.

Here is a graphic released by the district after the September board meeting with information about the new bond and what they hope to be able to accomplish with it.

Possible Orem builds:

• Two multipurpose facilities (one for Timpanogos HS and the other for Orem HS). The main purpose of these areas is to make sure students at these high schools have the same opportunities as students at larger schools. These buildings include classrooms and will be used for sports, band, etc.

• A seismic rebuild is on the bond and could be built in Orem. The decision about which schools would be affected would be made by a future school board depending on the Capital Improvement Committee's recommendations.

Once a year all administrators submit a list of capital needs for the coming budget year, which the budget committee prioritizes and sends to the Capital Improvement Committee for implementation. The Capital Improvement Committee looks at a number of things that can cause a school to be put on a 'watchlist' … the age of the school, enrollment, and seismic vulnerability among other things. Three Orem schools currently on the watchlist are Sharon, Windsor, and Orem Junior High.

Each month, the Capital Improvement Committee meets to review needs and projects across the district. Here is a list of the major capital improvement projects done in Orem recently.

If the bond does not pass, then the capital fund that we receive from the state will be used for the most urgent needs, which leaves less money available for less urgent needs. It will also mean the district will need to come up with other solutions for educating more students than we have schools for - staggering start times, year-round schedules, more trailers, boundary adjustments, changing grades at schools (such as putting 9th graders at the HS instead of the Jr High so that 5th/6th graders can move to the Jr High), etc. They would get creative and non-urgent projects would have to wait until a future bond.

Early in the process, when the feasibility study was released, we had some email discussions among our Timpanogos Council PTA board members about whether PTA should take a position on this issue. We decided to hold off, taking time to read the feasibility study and talk to our local boards first. We were also asked by the Region PTA leaders to wait until the city council decided officially to put it on the ballot.

Fast forward a few months ... our council board was overwhelmingly opposed to splitting Orem alone at this time, but we decided to poll our membership to make sure that we didn't take a position contrary to what PTA members want. We sent a survey to our 676 members asking if they support or oppose proposition 2. Over a third of the members responded (246) and 90.7% of them (223) voted to oppose the proposition. (Note: there are three PTA councils in Orem, and all three of them sent the survey. This is the number for Timpanogos Council only. I do not have the exact numbers for Mountain View Council or Orem Council, but I was told that they also had over 90% of their membership oppose the split).

So, we decided to go through the process of officially adopting the motion to oppose Orem Proposition 2. This is a pretty complicated process with a public meeting that allows comments, official motions, and board member votes ... very similar to what you see in a city council meeting. Our meeting was held on September 7th at Timpanogos High School. After public discussion (I've included a few comments below) and sharing of the survey results, a formal vote was taken. The motion to oppose Proposition 2 was unanimous. (You can see the minutes from all our meetings on our website).

Taking this motion basically means that local PTA units can either advocate openly for opposing the position (sharing information on their facebook pages and websites, hosting cottage meetings, and things like that) or they can remain silent about the issue. Like district employees and city council members, individual PTA members can always express their opinion either in favor of Prop 2 or against it. Even though we have adopted the position, my intention is to continue to keep the web site as unbiased as possible.

Utah and national PTA take positions on issues on a regular basis ... advocating for children is one of the main purposes of PTA. Article II, Section 1 of our bylaws reads:

The Purposes of the Utah PTA, in common with those of the National PTA, are:

a. To promote the welfare of children and youth in home, school, places of worship, and throughout the community;

b. To raise the standards of home life;

c. To advocate for laws that further the education, physical and mental health, welfare, and safety of children and youth;

d. To promote the collaboration and engagement of families and educators in the education of children and youth;

e. To engage the public in united efforts to secure the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and social well-being of all children and youth; and

f. To advocate for fiscal responsibility regarding public tax dollars in public education funding.

If you have any questions about what it means when PTA takes a position, please send an email to TimpangosCouncilPTA@gmail.com. You can also read more official details in our press release - Over 90% of responding Orem PTA members oppose an Orem District.

Here are a few of the comments made in our meeting, that so perfectly describe why we felt as a council that it was important to take this position now.

Teacher and PTA member:

"For over twenty years, I have owned a home near Orem High School and have happily paid my property taxes here to support all of our kids in our public schools.

"Many argued at the last City Council meeting that the people of Orem deserved to have their voice heard by voting on the ballot measure. Ironically, many of those who argued for Orem citizens to have their voice now seek to silence others, including this body by falsely implying that expressing the consensus of its members is somehow inappropriate. It is not inappropriate; it is just the right thing to do.

"The long arc of history repeatedly demonstrates that silence implies complicity, and the collective voice of the members is clearly, overwhelmingly expressed in opposition to Proposition 2. The [PTA] has a voice and a right to advocate for its constituency on issues. All you have to do is decide to do it. The public deserves to know that the superest of supermajorities – specifically the teachers in the Orem schools opposes this split– I mean really, when do you get 90% of anyone to agree on anything? ... the teachers in the Orem schools are nigh universally opposed because we know it will not be good for all our kids.

"And what’s the option here? To hide that from the public? Please vote to support your teachers and all our kids and publicly oppose Proposition 2. Please trust and support the considered consensus of those of us working in the schools. Thank you."

PTA Member:

"Tonight I have to publicly say thank you to our Presidents and Council for making the difficult decision to represent the members of our PTA on this critical issue that has been placed before us.

"It would have been simpler to stay on the sidelines and not get involved. It would have been safer to back down from the threats to the future of this organization expressed by some of our elected officials. It would have been easier to do nothing, but it would not have been right. Personally, I find it irresponsible and even insulting to this association and the educators that have committed their professional careers to our students to try and brush this off as merely a political issue that we have no business in. I can think of precious little that will have more immediate and long lasting impact on our children and the quality of education available to them then this issue. So thank you for having the courage to take a stand."

Teacher and PTA member:

"I appreciate all that the PTSA does for me and my children. The members of the PTSA represent the stake-holders in education - Parents, Teachers, Students, and Administration if we swap them in for the A. These people are IN our schools. They are involved. They support teachers and staff, help build and then help to maintain our amazing culture, they know the ins and outs of programs, funding, etc. They work hard to make sure kids are receiving the best education possible.

"No group of people is more qualified to take a position against Proposition 2 than the PTA, and I am here to strongly encourage them to do so. Staying neutral is equivalent to staying silent. Silence can be mistaken for acceptance. There are many other voices in the community loudly advocating for a split. We need the voice of the PTA. So please continue advocating for our children by voting to oppose Proposition 2."

It is not a matter of the district wanting Orem to stay. The district is not trying to sway voters one way or another - they are legally bound to remaining neutral.

In a Daily Herald article, an Orem Jr High teacher is quoted as saying, “The district is very hands off, has encouraged us to learn and do our civic duty, all while reminding us to not use school resources to push one side or another.”

The school board members from Orem have both been openly opposed to a split because they are looking after the needs of the children they represent and they feel the Alpine District best serves those children. The teachers and other school faculty that are speaking personally for or against splitting from the district are also representing their personal beliefs and not the district's position.

A feasibility study is an assessment of the practicality and viability of a proposed plan. Feasibility studies are commonly done for businesses and organizations to determine if a proposed plan is likely to succeed. The goal is to have an independent and unbiased outsider take a look at the plan and think through possible problems, legal considerations, financial pros and cons, etc. so that decision-makers can decide how to move forward. A feasibility study is not designed to express an opinion, but to analyze pros and cons and share financial projections.

Utah Code 53G-3-302 outlines how a new district can be formed, and a feasibility study is part of that process.

(1)(a) After conducting a feasibility study, a city with a population of at least 50,000, as determined by the lieutenant governor using the process described in Subsection 67-1a-2(3), may by majority vote of the legislative body, submit for voter approval a measure to create a new school district with boundaries contiguous with that city's boundaries, in accordance with Section 53G-3-301.

Feasibility studies are done for a variety of reasons, but here are some examples of school district feasibility studies so you can compare:

• Our Orem feasibility study

• 2014 study done for Jordan/Canyons split

• 2017 Orem split consideration

Possibly.

The transition team is appointed by the city council. We hope they will choose the people they feel are most qualified. It is possible they would choose employees of DEC.

Future school board members are elected by the people, and members of the city council or DEC employees would need to run for office in the same way as anyone else.

That elected school board then hires the superintendent and other district personnel. We are assuming that employees of DEC and/or members of the city council would go through the same application process as anyone else for any of these positions.

Before Covid, the school board and city council met regularly. Although many other cities have resumed these talks, Orem has not.

There was a meeting between the Orem City Council and the Alpine School District planned in February, but Mayor Young cancelled it because he felt it would be more helpful to meet in the evening and allow the public to come for an open forum. (Facebook announcement)

This meeting was not ever set up, but a small (non-public) meeting was scheduled to discuss the feasibility study findings. Unfortunately, someone that was going to attend the meeting came down with Covid and they were not able to get it rescheduled before the August 2nd vote. Once it was decided to put the issue on the ballot, the city council felt that a meeting wasn't a priority any longer.

Councilmember Terry Peterson does not know of any plans to reschedule the meeting (8/17 phone conversation).

Edit: Orem city councilmember Debby Lauret commented on a facebook discussion on September 16th that there have been smaller, informal meetings between some city council members and district personnel set up by our school board representatives. She said, "The meetings were productive, informative, and helpful. I hope we can meet as a full council soon."