Kathryn Reith’s recent letter to the Kirkland Reporter attacking my criticism of the LWSD school replacement (modernization) program is littered with inaccurate data presented as facts.

She asserts that the state recommends building a new building if remodeling would cost 40 percent more than the cost of a new building.

The fact is that state regulations (WACs) prevent them from even becoming involved in a remodeling project until costs exceed 40 percent of a new building (WAC 392-347-035). She goes on to claim that the district threshold of 80 percent for building new instead of remodeling is twice that of the state. In fact, the state will match the cost of remodeling up to 100 percent of new construction (WAC-392-347-040). The district threshold to build new is not twice as high as the state, it’s 20 percent lower.

Ms. Reith incorrectly states that I assume that the district could have saved millions of dollars by not building any new buildings. I actually asserted that hundreds of millions of extra dollars were spent to replace 21 relatively new and otherwise substantially sound buildings than if their useful life had instead been extended for decades by remodeling.

She offers no evidence to refute my statement, but proclaims that she will post information on the district Web site.

The district claims that it needs to build a new STEM school and permanent additions to high schools in Redmond and Sammamish to alleviate a housing shortage. Ms. Reith confirms that the district has the money to do so without running a $64.5 million dollar levy in February. The district presently intends to use that money to continue their building replacement policy for eight more schools. She implies that since seven of the schools are in Kirkland, it would be wrong to spend that money on Redmond and Sammamish schools. Is our district spokesperson suggesting that Kirkland voters should oppose the levy because it’s for building Redmond and Sammamish schools?

Paul Hall, Kirkland