OLYMPIA -- Coming up on your ballot in November is a measure to make schools across Washington State more energy efficient. Public school upgrades could cost taxpayers up to $500 million. Opponents question if energy bill savings would make the project worth while.
Supporters of Referendum 52 say better lighting, ventilation and air quality can help student performance. But critics say this is about the state going into debt another half billion dollars when it can least afford it.
Chief Sealth High School is Seattle recently had a $50 million makeover. The 50 year old school has plenty of environmentally friendly touches. It has wood benches recycled from old bleachers. It also has a heating system that is supposed to be 20% efficient. The renovation was paid for by taxpayers in the Seattle School District.
But now comes a new idea. Supporters want to make some of these kinds of upgrades to public schools across the state. The state would sell $500 million in bonds and spend the money on retrofitting school buildings to be more energy efficient.
"You get about $130 million a year in savings that will stay at the local school level, where they need it for teachers and custodians and that kind of stuff. We don't have to replace so many buildings," said Democrat Representative Hans Dunshee of Snohomish.
This year, the legislature and governor approved the bill putting it on the November ballot. If voters say "yes" to Referendum 52, the retrofits would mean new heating and cooling systems, plumbing, and lighting. Supporters say it would put people to work in construction jobs. But opponents doubt whether the energy savings are really worth spending a half billion dollars.
Amber Gunn of the Evergreeen Freedom Foundation says it is just a bad time for the state to spend this much money.
"If we can't afford what we're already spending money on why would we take on more debt?" said Gunn.
Critics also point out that the money to pay back these bonds would come from the state's general fund. That is money that could go to other state programs. Supporters added a line in the bill that would make a tax on bottled water permanent. It does not tie the bottled water tax directly to school construction. It is just extra money for the general fund.
But that leads to another twist. There is another ballot measure in November to eliminate the bottled water tax. If voters say yest to that too, the state may have to figure out how to pay for retrofitting schools.
