As a teacher in GSD whose second-floor room is blistering hot in August,
September, and May (in the 90's on many days) and whose students are literally
suffering, I would do practically anything for A/C. Something as simple as this
would actually improve learning!
I don't see the feasibility of rebuilding Olympus High School. There is barely
enough room for what is there now. They would probably lose the softball and
baseball field to parking. I don't see how it can be rebuilt for a reasonable
amount and get all of the facilities needed.
As mentioned earlier, the district has been debt free since 1996 when the last
bond was retired. At that time, the board of education received public support
at the tax hearing to transfer the funds that had been used to pay for those
earlier bonds to pay for ongoing capital needs. The district has been using the
money from the previous levy on a pay as you go basis for more then 10 years.
Rather than raising taxes, they will simply use those same funds to pay for the
debt service on the new bonds. This will enable the district to take advantage
of lower construction costs and interest rates to take care of pressing capital
outlay needs in the next 5 to 8 years instead of plodding along with a plan that
could take decades to complete and would likely never adequately catch up to
meet the needs of the students.
Of course the bond is a tax increase. If this bond is not passed, the current
levy being assessed for past bonds would be decreased. For you to characterize
this action as not raising taxes is not really correct, is it?I'm
not saying the bond shouldn't pass, and I hope the Granite District people will
educate themselves about the the need of the projects that will be covered by
the bond. I'm just asking that it be characterized correctly.
I attended the meeting and read the board report and talked to the board
members. This article alludes that the argument was over the bond itself which
isn't true. The board unanimously approved the project list. Granite School
District has been debt free since 1996 and has been paying as they go for their
capital expenses, with the pressure from the public on these projects, they have
now wisely decided to proceed with a bond using the current capital levy to make
the payments. Seems like a wise stewardship and a no-brainer to me. WITHOUT
RAISING TAXES. Why not bond when construction costs are 30-40% cheaper then they
were just a year ago and interest rates are in the 3's! So let me get this
straight, you are opposed to NOT raising taxes, NOT saving money on
construction, and paying higher interest rates and waiting to proceed on badly
needed projects...go sell that one to the voters. GRANITE DISTRICT HAS MY
The money used to build and maintain schools is, by law, separate from the
operations cost that pays teachers, buys books, etc. The bond will not raise
taxes, but will allow the district replace aging (possibly unsafe) schools,
meet patron demands to air condition the 52 schools that are not air conditioned
and build schools to accommodate westside growth. The money to pay the bond
will indeed come from the construction budget that is already allocated to the
district for those uses. Construction costs are down, and this will enable
the district to get these projects done over the next 10 to 15 yers instead of
Do not trust project lists associated with bonds. Some of the reasons for the
Jordan split are related to the 2003 bonds they issued. The JSD also published
a priority list when they went to the voters with their 2003 bonds, but this
list changed after the vote and projects started. The result was that many
voters felt the district did not honor the promises they had made.
Our economy and education is in a crisis and this board wants to divert
education funds and take on more debt in an already deficit budget. Who are they
kidding that taxpayers won't pay for this? Their slight of hand remark about not
raising property tax only means they will use taxes from other sources, until it
becomes necessary to target property as well.Any bonds or major
spending by any government agency including education is regressive not
feasible. Though we may need upgrading and schools, now is not the time to make
poor judgment in how we citizens will be forced in to more indentured servitude.
Times are tough and restrictions in spending and borrowing are what we need.Vote No to more spending or borrowing.