Jordan board hears focus‑group concerns and directs staff to prepare 2027 fieldhouse bond

The Jordan School District Board of Education on May 26 directed staff to keep preparing legal documents, calendar items and public engagement for a proposed district bond to fund field houses after a presentation researchers said explained why residents answered survey questions the way they did.

Christy Leak of Lighthouse Research presented focus‑group findings from three sessions on May 6, attended by 27 district residents likely to vote in 2026. Leak said most focus‑group participants saw potential benefits—added indoor practice space, fewer late‑night practices, opportunities for inclusive programming and access for students with disabilities—but emphasized a strong demand for more information about proof of need, overall cost, tax impact and long‑term maintenance.

"They need more information in order to make a decision about the bond," Leak told the board, summarizing the recurring remark across groups. In the small sample 18 participants said they probably or definitely would support the bond while nine said they probably or definitely would not, she reported, and several participants said discussion produced more questions than answers.

Business administrator John Larson reviewed a draft Zions Public Finance analysis and a sample ballot that showed how different modeling assumptions change household impacts. Larson said differences came from three assumptions: breaking the program into two separate issuances rather than one; projecting future assessed‑valuation growth; and incorporating bond‑sale premium assumptions. Those assumptions reduced an earlier $98 estimate to sample disclosures that showed about $0.74 and $0.71 per $100 of assessed value in different methods; Larson emphasized the figures remained draft until June assessed values and home‑value data were available.

Board members spent more than an hour questioning scope, timing and alternatives. Several raised concerns that a $120 million package for six field houses could be perceived as serving a narrow population of students, that enrollment trends may not justify broad districtwide construction, or that alternatives (targeted additions, pre‑fabricated enclosures, or shared community facilities) deserved more vetting. Others argued the field houses would reduce facility scheduling conflicts, better support winter programming and free up community recreation space.

After discussion Dr. Daryl Robinson moved that staff continue proceeding but put a bond on the November 2027 ballot; Brian Barnett seconded. The motion passed 5–2 (nay: Bryce Dunford and Nikki George).

What the board asked staff to do
- Update tax and cost estimates using June assessed‑value data and sample ballot language prepared by the district’s municipal advisor.
- Schedule the two legally required public input meetings and prepare the required election disclosures.
- Provide additional materials for the public describing who would have access to the field houses, operating and maintenance projections, sample scheduling scenarios and cost‑benefit comparisons with other options.

Why it matters
A board decision to pursue a ballot measure triggers a sequence of legal, outreach and calendar steps. A public‑facing information campaign and clearer tax disclosures will be required before the board can finalize an election question and file required arguments with the election officer.

What comes next
Staff said updated tax estimates will be prepared after county assessed‑value data is released in June and that public briefings will be scheduled before any final legal resolution or vote to place the question on the ballot.