Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 2, 2012 11:55:16 GMT -5
...the ability of something to do what it is supposed or expected to do; effectiveness compared to an expectation;
the quality of being successful in producing an intended result.
The converse is non efficacy, as when something does not do what it is supposed to do, or is not successful in producing the intended result.
But this is not intended as a vocabulary lesson.
The Wantagh School District spent $236,032 to install solar panels on the roof of the Middle School, ostensibly to reduce our electric costs. The District now reports that this solar generating system is probably saving us about $7,000 per year. The electric and gas budget is $800,000 per year.
Instead of a vocabulary lesson, let's make this a math lesson and divide the total cost by the annual savings to determine the payback or amortization period.
$145.032 Net Cost divided by $7,000 per year = 20 YEARS + 8 months "Pay-back".
That is (still) essentially a ZERO Return on Investment.
Imagine if we had a process to manage giving, of steering things such as grants like the grant that partially funded this project. This grant, the $125,000 of funds originating out of our non-property tax tax dollars, essentially became another un-funded mandate which required Wantagh to fork over the additional $111,032 to complete the project.IF we were managing grants and donations at all, we could have either steered this grant toward SMART Boards, or, rejected the grant and saved the $111,032 local (property tax) funding part, and used that money for SMART Boards, or, to sustain Full-day Kindergarten, or to fund additional hours of teaching for a Scientific Research Program.Instead, we got
Chris Wendt
the quality of being successful in producing an intended result.
The converse is non efficacy, as when something does not do what it is supposed to do, or is not successful in producing the intended result.
But this is not intended as a vocabulary lesson.
The Wantagh School District spent $236,032 to install solar panels on the roof of the Middle School, ostensibly to reduce our electric costs. The District now reports that this solar generating system is probably saving us about $7,000 per year. The electric and gas budget is $800,000 per year.
Instead of a vocabulary lesson, let's make this a math lesson and divide the total cost by the annual savings to determine the payback or amortization period.
CORRECTION: Additional Information
This Project earned what I now understand to have been a $91,000 rebate from LIPA.
$236,032 total cost minus $91,000 rebate = $145,032 Net Cost
$145.032 Net Cost divided by $7,000 per year = 20 YEARS + 8 months "Pay-back".
That is (still) essentially a ZERO Return on Investment.
Imagine if we had a process to manage giving, of steering things such as grants like the grant that partially funded this project. This grant, the $125,000 of funds originating out of our non-property tax tax dollars, essentially became another un-funded mandate which required Wantagh to fork over the additional $111,032 to complete the project.
That was later offset by the $91,000 LIPA reabate.
The $91,000 rebated now having been subsumed into our $800,000 LIPA bills, we are left withcomparatively non-productive solar panels sitting up on our roof.
Some readers have opined that the $125,000 cost of the grant was not a cost to the district. Of course, although the $125,000 did not come out of our property taxes, that grant was funded by your income taxes, sales taxes, and vehicle registration fees.
Chris Wendt