Board asks staff for options on Midas Creek and Sunset Ridge boundary alignment; staff to return in August with surveys and transportation analysis

The Jordan School District Board of Education held two initial boundary discussions during the June 10 study session — one to examine feeder‑alignment options for the Midas Creek neighborhood and another to consider preliminary options for alleviating enrollment at Sunset Ridge Middle School. No boundary changes were adopted; the board asked staff to return in August with more detailed options, a draft survey, and transportation/grandfathering scenarios.

Midas Creek discussion: Board members discussed three broad approaches for the Midas Creek neighborhood, which currently feeds multiple middle and high schools. Options discussed included: (1) retain current boundaries (no change); (2) realign to put the whole Midas Creek cohort into a single feeder pair (suggested destinations included Ochre Hills middle and Riverton High because those campuses show available capacity over the next several years); or (3) a split option. Several board members favored a phased approach to avoid forcing current secondary‑school students to change schools abruptly. Staff was directed to craft survey language that presents clear choices and to model the impact of a three‑year and six‑year grandfathering approach on permits, transportation eligibility and capacity, and to return data on transportation implications.

Sunset Ridge discussion: Staff presented maps and three‑year enrollment forecasts for Sunset Ridge, West Hills, Elkridge and Joel P. Jensen Middle Schools and described options for moving identified attendance areas to balance capacity. Board members discussed implications for high‑school feeders (Bingham, Copper Hills and West Jordan High School) and for walk‑to‑school boundaries. Several routing and safety issues (street crossings and bus eligibility) were flagged. The board directed staff to examine two or three viable scenarios and to return August materials with analyses of traffic/busing implications, and proposed grandfathering timelines (three‑year rollouts were discussed as a reasonable starting point).

Next steps: Staff will prepare a public survey framed around a limited set of board‑approved options, present transportation staffing/route implications, and include proposed grandfathering language (examples: permit windows, multi‑year transition scenarios and the district’s approach to permitting through the transition). The board requested the staff provide the options, a recommended survey plan, and recommended draft grandfathering language at the August study session so the board can decide whether to proceed with formal public notices and open‑house sessions later this fall.

Board members stressed transparency and clear communication: the board asked that any community notifications clearly explain the purpose of changes (feeder alignment vs. capacity relief), how permitting/transportation would work during a transition and how families could provide feedback.