[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6740418,"mediaKeyId","2138518-8cf97bb4741b44015326eb6d7eb396cd","parentId",2138518,"title","Granite School Board hears capital‑plan update; staff cite deferred‑maintenance gap and several funding options","audioSeconds",4626,"startMs",1007000,"endMs",5633000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2138518-8cf97bb4741b44015326eb6d7eb396cd&start=1007&end=5633","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2138518-8cf97bb4741b44015326eb6d7eb396cd/thumbnail_1007000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6740418/Utah/Granite-School-Board-hears-capitalplan-update-staff-cite-deferredmaintenance-gap-and-several-funding-options","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6740418-a6f233cf4c59cfa24855baedf9cd38ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1771000319&Signature=cMGVhYI4jcdCjF56EWom9huaHeYR~wF1MYoQ-qBJoV3OCBeigazRnHNhd7tdMPP6NYFXACDoq-p4pgW5bqijuYdewIv4MvwkQlqK-giRf-cN4DzQOezKz00rSEkapxi-i~mLt5BzEA0UPrZabhtaFQbmm4vLCR9IPGWkkEhRz9Lr0NTmEYYnlrw90SnNAC58sWMEYpBRXyjLSw~FbCU96l2hmKBln5UqxgIf5jjz4cHAJkmCqRSGZ-zO3NkvhF3dWUZC5Xv-rDozgB6iDImOH-2Y5pZOI1Ov-7pgT8D1xmxSHj0d0n4q3acKXg3C7JNjRtgalm90FougqRXqoXiqLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-01-22T15:05:05Z","article","District staff told the Granite School Board that the 2017 capital financing strategy remains viable in the long term but that rising construction costs, supply issues and timing constraints forced project delays and created pressure on routine capital spending.

Todd, a district staff presenter, summarized the district’s prior facility condition assessment (FCI), the phasing that underpinned the 2017 bond and the hybrid financing approach adopted then: bond proceeds for named projects and a pay‑as‑you‑go capital levy to fund ongoing remodels and improvements. He explained the plan’s mechanics: as bonds are paid off, the district planned to move debt‑service capacity into the capital fund and “hold the combined rate steady” to capture property valuation growth for future capital needs. Todd noted that relabeling revenue triggers a truth‑in‑taxation process because the budgeted yield changes.

Staff showed updated cost forecasts, saying producer‑price and labor indexes spiked in 2021–23, then moderated; revenues improved because of higher investment returns. Even so, real‑world cost and schedule pressures required shifting many projects out years. Under current 2024 projections, roughly $50 million of property‑tax revenue is committed to the pay‑as‑you‑go process and about $22 million remains for other capital needs; after existing allocations (IT, equipment, police, school allocations) the net available for one‑off facility projects is about $9 million for 2024. Todd told trustees the inventory of requests runs far above that figure — a snapshot of requests exceeded $65–70 million, leaving an approximate deferred‑maintenance shortfall the board discussed at roughly $58 million.

Staff presented options. They recommended first reassessing project timing against updated costs and revenues so the board can determine which projects could shift forward without changing the overall plan. Other choices include revisiting design guidelines (reducing capacity or altering building standards), moving projects off the active list if closed schools no longer need rebuilding, pursuing another bond proposition, using available capital‑levy headroom (subject to statutory caps), issuing lease‑revenue bonds as a cleanup tool (noting federal scrutiny of tax‑exempt municipal debt could change costs), or formalizing a process for leasing or selling surplus properties.

Trustees pressed staff on several topics: whether the earthquake work changed FCI scores (staff recommended a full reassessment to be certain, noting some schools like Eisenhower saw improved structural ratings after repairs); whether reordering projects would breach promises made in the bond campaign (staff answered that many projects share the same scheduled year and limited timing adjustments are possible without changing the overall sequence); and whether unreinforced masonry or seismic needs create immediate safety risks (staff said seismic improvements were called out in the bond and that a comprehensive seismic‑only program would require a very large bond and face construction‑capacity limits).

The board discussed the recently passed security/safety legislation. Staff said final implementation specifications are still being developed, that state dollars might offset part of the cost, but that the law could add tens of millions to the district’s needs and recommended waiting until after the legislative session to adopt major plan changes.

Several trustees urged the board to consider increasing recurring capital allocations rather than relying solely on project‑by‑project pay‑as‑you‑go funds. Board members cited safety, facility condition, teacher retention and competition with newer charter facilities as reasons to reduce the deferred‑maintenance backlog. Todd and staff responded that they will update cost estimates, reassess timing and could return with scenario options; staff also recommended community engagement before making substantive list changes or new revenue requests.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","January 21, 2025 Board Study Session Live Stream Part 2","oneSentenceSummary","District staff told the Granite School Board that the 2017 capital strategy is still viable but that construction‑cost spikes and other pressures forced project delays and left a multi‑million‑dollar deferred‑maintenance gap.","taxTitle","Granite School Board, Granite School District, Utah School Boards, Utah","taxId",75979,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6740423,"Granite School Board reviews ethics, confidentiality and open‑meetings rules",733,0,733000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2138518-8cf97bb4741b44015326eb6d7eb396cd&start=0&end=733","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2138518-8cf97bb4741b44015326eb6d7eb396cd/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6740423/Utah/Granite-School-Board-reviews-ethics-confidentiality-and-openmeetings-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6740423-28de0bab6269bff835f503438362e7d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771000319&Signature=AlnU0WCait03Eh6zmo5wDdxAqFOwX4cN8UN5ZkfkHJOtZs5X8M~i2d-2jGWCYQSXZwO8~J3DOIx1KYjbQS820Cuj0q1MjXh21LwipflgzgffEkkdmIJO5Tha1og-2r9AMIyvJ4BFs9kjaxzLjb~XnMhG7Wrmqusq6scFQAo1TlTKBGdOjbjaE4y5irLN4XUsbIhW1693WojeQj2D28KzSmyIxSyIfwzG9IKyfA29wp9l5up2OSCISB0GZ--hN7MjM55DtGQ9BSoJsSR6b445SPxeG5Sx6YqOsRLT6lB-jGnR3p2F0dC8hYN4ZXJZVKbPCVKrIKwAU5czRHLl~e-a3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Granite School Board opened its meeting with an annual ethics and Open and Public Meetings Act refresher emphasizing disclosure, confidentiality and transparency requirements.

A staff presenter reviewed conflict‑of‑interest rules, saying board members must disclose any business or employment relationships that touch district transactions and complete conflict forms kept on file. The presenter also stressed that confidential information—most notably student and employee records and materials discussed in executive session—must not be disclosed outside the proper meeting context.

The presenter reviewed public‑meeting procedures under the Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA), including the statute’s definition of a “meeting” as a gathering of a quorum to discuss matters within the board’s jurisdiction; the 24‑hour notice requirement; and the conditions for an emergency meeting, which still requires a majority vote and must be urgent. Trustees were reminded that the board may discuss items raised during public comment but cannot take formal action on matters not listed on the posted agenda.

Staff also explained operational requirements: meeting recordings must be posted to the state site within three days, draft minutes must be available within 30 days, and approved minutes must be posted within three days of approval. The presenter described the limited conditions under which closed‑meeting recordings may be withheld (for personnel or security discussions) and the requirement for a two‑thirds vote to enter a closed meeting for specified purposes.

Trustees asked clarifying questions during the training about follow‑up during public comment and about the mechanics of electronic meetings and anchor locations. Staff advised that while members may ask follow‑up questions of a patron during public comment, formal actions must be on the noticed agenda; an electronic meeting requires an anchor location where one participant facilitates the session.

The board did not take formal action during the training segment and moved on to a separate capital‑plan presentation.","Trustees received a refresher on conflicts of interest, confidentiality, closed‑meeting rules and public participation as part of an annual Open and Public Meetings Act training. Staff emphasized disclosure requirements, timelines for posting recordings and draft minutes, and limits on taking action on non‑agenda items.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Granite School Board hears capital‑plan update; staff cite deferred‑maintenance gap and several funding options

Granite School Board reviews ethics, confidentiality and open‑meetings rules