Rising fuel costs hitting town
Reported by the MRJs Stacy Graham-Hunt:
The rising cost of fuel and utilities is affecting the public school system. Rising fuel costs may mean an increase in the price of school lunches next school year. A basic school lunch currently costs $2.65 and a premium lunch is $3.65 at Cheshire High School. Madeleine Diker, the town's food service director will have to evaluate the rising prices being set by the food vendors, before she can say what will happen. However, grocery prices and oil delivery charges have gone up, so she said she expects an increase. Her department will have to reflect the increased prices in what they charge.
Further into the article are other school "energy issues," including a mention that
the Planning Committee of the Board of Education approved a new heating and cooling system for Cheshire High School.
That's good news from the BOE. They've been thinking about this retrofit for a while. So with energy costs having risen dramatically, staff ought to be able to make the case for this "dual-fuel" (both oil and natural gas work) heating system fairly easily. And since this project has been estimated to cost between one and two million dollars, the case will need to be made because projects costing in excess of $350,000 must go to referendum.
Of course, as many of you know... this leads to the question of which financing mechanism to use: bonding, performance contracting or some other mechanism.
And that's a difference of opinion that has existed between myself and the Town Manager for some time now. I think the town should be seriously considering the use of performance contracts because we could avoid major cash outlays and expedite projects. On the flip side, the Town Manager is concerned that ratings agencies and/or others would look at the value of the performance contracts (what would have been bonded) and consider that as part of the Town's total debt.
That's a legitimate concern, but... when the choice is between a rapid rollout of energy conservation measures or a lower theoretical debt burden... to me, energy conservation and reducing America's dependence on foreign oil is clearly the higher priority.
(As for why I think we could roll out such energy conservation measures quicker... I believe that by going through the steps required to engage in performance contracts... we would force ourselves to look at lifecycle costs in a detailed fashion... and that analysis would lead to increased support from the public.)
Regardless of how I feel, the answer to this choice lies with the Council majority.
Tim White
Town Council, Energy Commission liaison
6 comments:
I thought the high school already operated on a oil and gas heat system. I thought they had the ability to switch over from one to the other.
As far as lunch prices go, Cheshire is at or below surrounding towns when it comes to the price of lunch. As everyone should know, the lunch program is a "self supporting program." In other words, the Board of Ed does not fund any of their expenses. School lunch has come a long way over the years. For anyone that knows much about the program, they know that they're getting a real bargain when it comes to school lunches both for students and staff.
CHS was built in sections. Much of CHS is dual fuel, but not back part (west wing or science wing). It's electric heat back there.
Thanks for clarifying, Tim. They should do something with Highland School's heating system too. It's all electric there.
They should do something with Highland School's heating system too. It's all electric there.
They should. But will they?
Don't forget, it appears the TM feels the bond rating is more important than reducing America's dependence on foreign oil.
One main point of contention on energy efficiency is performance based contracting. Cheshire has yet to adopt and buy into this concept proven over the last 20 years. In simple terms you get another party to do the work for you and the bill is paid from the savings in energy for the building. We missed an opportunity at Norton School boiler this year. Could have installed a gas fired combined heat & power system that had a lower installed cost than the base bid of $190,000 for the boiler. The system would have cost less to run and generated all of the electricity and more than what the school required. Additional savings would have been earned by selling electricity back to CL&P. Putting new windows in Norton would have decreased the payback time. Under the current system a mechanical engineer designed the system using older methods, no risks. The world has been using performance contracting, schools are doing it but here we just stay the same course. And we wonder why it costs more to live here, we have brain drain out of State.
What a surprise. Where have they been? Do they worry about it only come budget time? They should be getting all electric heated schools off of this. There are other ways.
Post a Comment