The $283 million bond proposal from Canyons School District to upgrade, expand and rebuild several schools may be a good thing.
Some of the older schools were built in the 1950s and cannot support the technology needed in today’s classrooms.
But while Friends of Canyons School District Bond, the political issues committee set up to promote the proposal, is touted as concerned parents wanting to ensure a better education for their children, the PIC’s financial backers include architecture and engineering firms that could make tens of millions of dollars if the projects are approved.
Pay to play? Maybe.
But are the projects desperately needed to advance education in the district? Probably.
Even so, parents and residents don’t seem to be nearly as passionate about getting the bond passed as the companies that have bid on the projects.
The Friends of Canyons School District Bond has raised more than $42,000, according to the latest financial report, filed Oct. 31. The group has paid for billboards, lawn signs, flyers and ads promoting the bond.
All but $120 has been donated by nine companies that could earn millions if awarded bids on the various projects.
Construction company Hogan & Associates has contributed $10,000 to the PIC, enough to make even Orrin Hatch envious.
VCBO Architecture has kicked in $5,000; FFKR Architects, $5,000; MHTN Architects, $5,000; Naylor Wentworth Lund Architects, $5,000; Hughes General Contractors, $5,000; NJRA Architects, $3,000; George K. Baum & Co., a public financing firm, $3,000; and Spectrum Engineers, $980.
But, hey, Barbara Antonetti donated $20, Suzanne Walker gave $40, Jade Teran provided $30, and Brad Snow put in $30. That has to count for something.
For some, the investment has already paid off, provided voters approve the bond proposal.
MHTN has won a bid for work on Brighton High School, FFKR has won for work on Hillcrest High School, and VCBO has been awarded the bid for Alta High School.
Some critics of the bond proposal point out that requests for proposals were sent out July 21, a full month before the Canyons School Board voted to put the measure on the ballot.
But Canyons District spokesman Jeff Haney noted public meetings discussing the measure were held in May and June, well before RFPs went out. He said there is a 75- to 90-day window to approve the ballot measure before the election. The earlier meetings were held beyond the 90 days, so the board waited until it was inside the window to approve it.
The RFPs were sent before final approval because other area school districts have bond proposals on the ballot this year, and there are only so many architecture and engineering firms that can do the job. Canyons wanted to ensure they had the best firms available, Haney said.
No district money has been spent on the bidding process, he added, and if the bond measure fails, the bid awards simply won’t be executed.
Other school district bond issues have independent PICs as well, with architecture and engineering firms again carrying much of the load.
Parents for Granite, for example, has received about half its nearly $40,000 in contributions from such businesses tosupport Granite School District’s $238 million bond proposal. But most of the68 donations have been from individuals.
Republican logic? • Sen. Mike Lee, in recent emails to constituents, has come up with a new term: “The parent tax penalty.”
What’s that?
Well, according to Lee, it is a penalty imposed on parents by our current tax system because of the cost they have to incur rearing their kids.
As an example, Lee cites a comparison of two couples who make identical incomes and pay the same amount in taxes for Social Security and Medicare for seniors. But parents will spend $200,000 raising a child while a childless couple will save that amount. And then the kid grows up and pays taxes for those senior entitlements.
Lee wields that argument for his proposal to expand the tax credits for dependent children, which might not be a bad thing.
But what about the person who spends tens of thousands of dollars on a college education? That person will likely earn more than someone who doesn’t go to college and, therefore, pay more taxes toward the entitlement programs. Shouldn’t that person get a tax credit because of the college tax penalty?
And what about the person who buys a new, safer car? The motorist who continues to drive a clunker gets to save money and, at the same time, impose a hazard on the road to others. Isn’t that a new-car tax penalty?
Just saying.