After reading an article by Leon Valsechi in the 11/9 CDT regarding construction bids for three local schools, I was curious as to why the school board would vote in favor of including $500,000 for rooftop solar arrays. Prior to that vote, the board had been advised by the director of physical plant to “reject the solar plan because the combination of the district’s negotiated low electric rates and the energy efficiency of the new buildings would not allow the arrays to pay for themselves prior to their 30-year life expectancy.” Why would the board vote to spend half of a million dollars for a project that, at best, would not pay for itself in 30 years?
It seems like the answer to my question appeared in Valsechi’s article in Friday’s (11/24) CDT. The terms “chance of a lifetime,” “privilege,” “tipping point” and “cumulative effect” were cited by some members of the board, but there was no promise of net-zero cost. While certain board members might have admirable concerns about climate change, I have to agree with those members who voted in opposition, indicating that using taxpayer’s funds to make a statement was not a fiscally responsible decision.
Barb Fiscus, Boalsburg
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to the Centre Daily Times