Quantcast

Comments about ‘Vote slated on $256M Granite school bond’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 13 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
In a crisis.

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.

Project List

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.

Not education funds

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 30.

facts are important

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 SUPPORT.

@ facts are important

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.

clarification

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.

KS Grl

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.

Anonymous

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!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments