To The Editor:
As promised a few weeks ago, I am now proposing cost savings that could be useful to the UCF budgets, now and in the near future:
1) Heating systems could have their settings lowered lto 2 degrees in all buildings. Similarly the cooling systems could be raised 1or 2 degrees.
2) Geo-thermal systems could be installed at all buildings to naturally lower costs for heating and air conditioning.
3) LED lighting fixtures with computerized controls could be installed in the district.
4) Plan to run the buses longer before trading them in for new buses.
5) Use computer programs to optimize bus routes.
6) Evaluate the use of other fuels for our buses such as natural gas or electricity.
7) Install solar panels to serve each building and cut electric costs.
8) Return the student to teacher ratio to the 2003-04 level of 13.2 students per teacher instead of the 2014-15 level of 12.6 students per teacher. The drop in the student to teachers requires an additional 15.5 teachers at a cost of at least $1 million annually. This is the latest data I have to establish these ratios. There may be even more savings using current data.
As before I am still confidant that community volunteers would serve on committees to help lower costs in the district I am sure that there are additional cost savings that community members could propose.
The 2016-17 UCF budget should not exceed $80 million.
Bruce Yelton,
Pocopson
Wow.
These suggestions are a hot mess and would likely raise taxes, hurt education and just don’t make sense.
Let’s go point by point:
1. Lowering temps maybe possible but one must wonder if there are special Ed rules in terms temp ranges. Warmer summer temps might have an expensive and negative impact on technology.
2. Geo-thermal systems are great, but expensive. Also, it would mean tossing new systems at Patton and the High School. WillMr. Yeltsin support the multi million dollar bond is sue for this project?
3. Same issue. Great concept, but very expensive to implement and would require tossing out expensive nearly new lighting in buildings.
4. Running old buses is a diminishing return and increases the safety risk and liability for the district.
5. Already in place for an number of years.
6. While such an evaluation might be worthy, current oil pricing suggests that the expense in terms of infrastructure would be a net loser.
7. Again, cost to benefit ratio unlikely to net savings.
8. Because of special Ed requirements this ratio is misleading. Already student-teacher ratios are lower than 2010, having been trimmed a few years back.
If Mr. Yelton had his way, the budget would exceed $90 million.