Only 18 months after a bitterly contested initiative campaign to prevent the city of Orem from forming its own school district, Alpine School District may split after all.
A ballot initiative titled Proposition 2 was created to give Orem residents a choice on whether to remove their schools from the largest school district in the state of Utah or stay with Alpine School District and was put to a vote during the midterm election in November of 2022.
Two very vocal factions formed that year, one in favor of the split and the other against it. The Pro side was a group called Stand for Orem. The Con side went by the moniker Stronger Together. I addressed this heated campaign and the tactics used to thwart Orem’s bid to leave the biggest school district in the state. You can get the full story in this article titled “Battle Over New School District Gets Ugly.” In short, the Stronger Together faction combined with ASD in what can only be called a misinformation campaign to sway Orem voters to vote NO on the referendum. That campaign worked and 70% of Orem citizens voted No.
In my previous article I mentioned how Stronger Together relied more on emotional pleas, endorsements, and testimonials of notable community figures than hard data, a strategy that worked. They even had five local CPA’s come to bat for them and submit a letter to the editor at the The Daily Herald explaining why they thought a split was a bad idea. I believe that editorial was very influential and pushed a lot of unsure voters to the NO side.
Tim Christensen, CPA, Retired partner at Squire, CPAs, James Gilbert, CPA, Managing Partner of Gilbert & Stewart, CPAs, Steve Hortin, CPA, Senior Partner of The Hortin Group, Brett Duckworth, CPA, Partner of Duckworth & Gordon, and Douglas Halladay, CPA, President of Douglas D. Halladay & Company all suggested the data pointed to keeping ASD intact. They included financial data, cost per student, operating cost figures, property tax revenue, state MSP funding, and made comparisons to other schools in the state. They pointed to the problems with the Jordan/Canyons district split implying the same could happen with Orem/ASD. My main issue with their letter and its contents was nowhere did they provide citations to where their numbers came from. This was a common tactic with Stronger Together and ASD in their campaign against Prop 2. They would provide data but not identify where the data came from nor how it came to be. You could never fact check them.
Another disturbing part of this editorial letter was its mention of another CPA, John Barrick. Barrick was called out by name as the group of CPA’s disparaged his findings and those of other accounting professionals including the Utah Taxpayers Association who were on the pro side. The letter stated, “The numbers presented by the pro-split group do not make sense and are not accurate. We were very disappointed to learn that John Barrick and the other accounting professors did not ask any questions of ASD staff to try and reconcile their numbers. We, on the other hand, reviewed the numbers with ASD staff and are satisfied that all the questions/corrections that the professors raised have reasonable explanations.” This letter to the editor published only 10 days before the election openly disparaging Mr. Barrick and other financial experts didn’t sit well with those individuals as you might imagine. Mr. Barrick then penned a very long and fact-filled rebuttal. Unfortunately, it wasn’t published in The Daily Herald and most Orem residents never saw it. I wish they had. It provided a well articulated and cited argument for the split and countered the assertions of the five CPA’s with easily verifiable data. Here is a link to that rebuttal titled “Response To Provo Daily Herald Editorial on October 29th”
After reading and fact checking Barrick’s response it’s hard for me to believe the five CPA’s who put their name to that letter really took the time to sift through the data and make an honest assessment. It looks more like they took what ASD gave them and rubber stamped it. If the public had the same access to Mr. Barrick’s response as they did the CPA’s letter to the editor, I believe the vote would have been much closer. I can’t say it would have changed the result but it would have dispelled a lot of the myths and misinformation that had been pushed by a very active opposition group.
The Stand for Orem group warned that a split was inevitable at some point in the future regardless the outcome of the election, noting several feasibility studies done over the years had pointed to an eventual split and showing Orem would be capable of supporting its own school district. ASD and its supporters at Stronger Together were able to defeat Prop 2 only to suffer their own defeat when Proposition 1, a ballot initiative asking taxpayers to approve a $595 million dollar bond, was roundly opposed by Utah County voters. In hindsight it appears Stronger Together and ASD spent too much time and energy working to defeat Prop 2 and not enough working to promote Prop 1 which has put them in the uncomfortable position they find themselves in today, looking at a new feasibility study and going through the process of determining how a district split would work and how it should be applied if adopted.
That brings us to the current situation and ASD’s consideration for a district split. MGT Consulting Group out of Tampa, Florida has been commissioned to do the feasibility study on a district split and possible options should a split be warranted. MGT has partnered with the Utah State Board of Education to provide training, asset assessments, and support to school-based community coordinators across the state. This may explain why ASD chose this group to do the feasibility study rather than a local firm. A number of MGT presentations have been made at public meetings and online. A video of the slide deck used in the presentation with voice narration can be viewed here on YouTube. A PDF document showing the slides can be viewed HERE.
There are six split options being discussed. As an Orem resident my preferred choice is option 4, which puts Orem, Lindon, Vineyard, and Pleasant Grove into an “East District.” The MGT presentation estimates option 4 could carry an annual property tax increase based on two scenarios. One includes a fictional 20 year $200 million dollar bond while the other considers the increase in property values and associated taxes that would accompany that increase. If a bond was passed the increase in cost per household would be about $192 per year. Without a bond and based on the value of one tax increment, the increase in cost per household would be roughly $85 per year.
I found it interesting that the MGT study made keeping ASD intact and not splitting look very attractive. Read into that what you will based on what you know about ASD. I have my own skeptical and jaded opinions.
Patron feedback is being gathered via online surveys. All of the information gathered by MGT will be presented to the ASD board on April 23rd. The board will then consider that information and likely make their recommendation known sometime in May. At that point what happens next in your area will depend largely on the board members who govern your part of the district. Some are proposing Town Hall meetings to give patrons an opportunity to ask questions and share thoughts in person. You should contact your board representatives and ask them what they plan to do.
In the end, the decision lies with the school board. They can make the choice themselves or they can make a recommendation to put one of the options on the ballot for a public up or down vote. I don’t really like that only one option can be voted on. It would be nice if the public could have multiple votes on all six and whittle it down to one, but the logistics for something like that would be crazy and probably cause more confusion than already exists. I do hope the board gives the public the option to have a say and vote. I believe splitting into three districts is the best option.
Wait and see…
