To The Editor,
The UCF School Board has passed a preliminary budget for the 2016-17 school year to meet State legal requirements. There is no indication that the Board has yet considered any ways to increase non-tax income or cost savings in this budget.
There a several ways to increase non-tax income that include:
1) State laws that require students from outside our district must be enforced. These students should pay full tuition fess and all other fees associatedwith their attendance in our district. For the past several years this law has been ignored.
2) If the property taxes are increasing X %, then student parking fees, student participation, and all other participation fees should also be increase by X %
3) rental of facilities should also be increased X %
4) ticket prices for all athletic events and to all presentations in all auditoriums should also be increased by X %
5) we have a large participation in AP course that if successfully completed could allow these students to save large college tuition costs. UCF taxpayers should not be paying student college costs. A very large fee for these courses should be required.
The Board should adopt all these suggestions and stop putting the increased budget costs on the property tax payers in the UCF District .. Other property taxpayers are encouraged to show their support, and offer other viable ideals.
I will follow with cost cutting suggestions in a few weeks.
Bruce B. Yelton
Pocopson
While I don’t condone senior bashing or boomer hating, I must agree that many of these suggestions are, at best, deluded. Charging students to take certain classes would cause significantly more issues than it would fix. These classes cost the same to run as any other class and it would not affect the bottom line in any meaningful way.
Selfish, deluded and illinformed like Mr. Yelton do not affect or suggest any meaningful or realistic change that can occur and, in the end, only serve to promote more ire against people of his generation.
I read these suggestions and am left in wonder. Aside from the fact that Mr. Yelton is uninformed that the state sets admission for scholastic sporting events, this diatribe of “I don’t want to pay my share” is self-abosrbed, shortsighted and sad.
I’ll agree to all of this if my federal taxes can be lowered and Mr. Yelton’s is hit with user fees to pay for his Medicare (I spend many, many thousands of dollars for private health insurance, and I don’t see why I should pay for Mr. Yelton’s healthcare). I’ll gladly pay a few hundred more in user fees for my kids if Mr. Yelton will pony up a few thousand more for his senior benefits.
Obviously, that is a ridiculous point of view — as a community, we have a shared responsibility for the young, the old and everyone in between. Plus — unless you were educated privately (and your kids were) assume your public school education cost in constant 2016 dollars in the neighborhood of $200,000 from K through 12.
Have you paid that much in school property taxes yet? Thought not.
Are there efficiencies that should be considered? Yes. Should some costs be moved onto families? Arguably. But much of that has happened already — and again, I don’t see a rush by Mr. Yelton’s generation of self-absorbed Baby Boomers rushing to demand user fees for Medicare and other senior benefits, just attacking the working folks many of whom are paying a lot more in taxes (when you add in federal income tax) than they are.
We could nitpick, like small-minded people splitting a lunch check, or, shockingly, we could accept the social contract of society that takes care of the youngest and the oldest in our society as fairly as possible.
Should our schools be watched carefully on spending to make sure it is effective and efficient? Without doubt. Should we be cost shifting to users — and only selected users — without looking at the wider picture, impact on education and the community at large? Without doubt. no.