This chapter addresses the Hillsborough County School District Department of Transportation which is one of several offices within the Division of Business and Research reporting to the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Research. The Transportation Department transports approximately 75,000 students a day to school and home on regular runs, as well as special education runs, mid-day shuttle runs, late runs and special activity runs for athletic, educational and extra curricular programs.
With a FY 1997 budget of almost $39.5 million, the Transportation Department uses approximately 1,024 buses per day, 890 regular school bus drivers, and 21 administrative supervisors for a combined travel distance of almost 19 million miles per year.
This chapter contains eight major sections:
13.1 Transportation Overview 13.2 Management Policies 13.3 Organization and Staffing 13.4 School Bus Route Scheduling 13.5 Bus Fleet Management 13.6 Non-Bus Fleet Management 13.7 Alternative Fuels
13.8 Training
It should be noted that throughout this chapter there will be some variation in the number of buses cited. This fluctuation is due to various databases supplied by the district and state with inconsistent numbers, the time when the data were recorded and reported, and the identified student population included in each database.
13.1 Transportation Overview
The purpose of the overview is to develop a perspective of the size and complexity of the transportation operation in the Hillsborough County School District. National statistics are presented to show the significant size of the operation in relation to other large school systems.
In addition to national comparisons, it is important to establish the framework of the state laws that govern the standards of operation for the Transportation Department within the Hillsborough County School District. School district levels of flexibility to manage the operation are governed by specific federal and state laws.
Transportation operations are compared to several peer districts in an attempt to assess several key elements such as level of state funding, funding sources, percent of occupancy, rurality factors, transported miles by program and other relevant data that effect the management of the district’s Transportation Department.
The growth of the district is reflected in the number of schools built since 1975. Not
of creative alternatives and strategies to deal with limited resources and increased demands. For example, during 1996, the Transportation Department made use of a community-based Budget Advisory Task Force to assist in its efforts to prioritize and develop alternatives for cost reductions and operational improvements.
CURRENT SITUATION
According to the December 1996 School Bus Fleet, a monthly professional transportation industry publication, the Hillsborough County School District operates the tenth largest bus fleet in the nation. Exhibit 13-1 compares the top 50 national school bus fleets utilizing the number of buses, the number of pupils transported daily, and size of fleet.
In a December 1995 School Bus Fleet publication shown in Exhibit 13-2, the Hillsborough County School District ranked seventh in number of daily student riders and 12th in the nation in transportation productivity at 62 riders per bus.
The Transportation Department in the Hillsborough County School District is faced with many challenges in planning, maintaining, and evaluating its operational needs and distribution of resources. National issues and local issues are reflective of the times and include such areas as:
n
school choice
n
charter schools
n
double sessions
n
modified school calendar
n
activity busing
n
alternative education
n
magnet programs
n
teen parent
n
day care
n
special education
School districts attempt to maximize their productivity per bus by using fewer buses for multiple routes. Baltimore County Public Schools in Maryland, for example, reported 114 riders per bus; Gwinnett County School District in Lawrenceville, Georgia reported 107; and East Baton Rouge, Louisiana reported 82 riders per bus. As displayed in Exhibit 13-2, the Hillsborough County School District ranked 12th with 62 riders per bus.
Section 234, Florida Statutes, and State Board Rule 6A-3 mandates transportation for all students for the regular school year of 180 days. Florida law specifically states that students must be provided transportation to school if they reside two or more miles from school. The two-mile limit does not apply to students with special needs, pre- kindergarten children, or elementary students within a two-mile radius of the school, where walking conditions have been declared hazardous due to specifically defined traffic conditions.
Exhibit 13-3 outlines the Florida Statutes and Department of Education State Board
Rules that govern the transportation of school children in the State of Florida.
EXHIBIT 13-1
LARGEST 50 NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS FLEETS
Rank School District
Small Buses
Large Buses
Lift- Equipped
Small Buses
Lift- Equipped
Large Buses
Contractor Buses
Pupils
Daily Fleet ‘96 Fleet ‘95
Change vs. ‘95 1 New York City Public
Schools, Long Island City,
NY 2,256 1,744 0 320 4,000 160,000 4,000 3,838 162
2 Los Angeles Unified School District, Los
Angeles, CA 1,278 1,176 240 35 1,050 70,000 2,454 2,577 -123
3 Chicago Public Schools,
Chicago, IL 543 1,820 140 210 2,363 50,000 2,363 2,340 -23
4 Dade County Public
Schools, Miami, FL 456 1,263 140 311 144 65,105 1,719 1,428 291
5 Milwaukee School District,
Milwaukee, WI 500 1,000 75 0 1,500 55,500 1,500 1,440 60
6 Houston Independent School District, Houston,
TX 481 861 219 15 0 41,762 1,342 1,041 301
7 Dallas County Schools,
Dallas, TX 381 888 35 0 0 50,000 1,269 1,323 -54
8 Fairfax County School
District, Lorton, VA 23 1,209 10 167 0 101,327 1,232 1,232 0
9 Broward County School
District, Oakland Park, FL 10 1,215 0 185 0 63,587 1,225 1,051 174
10 Hillsborough County Public Schools, Tampa,
FL 4 1,208 12 170 0 78,009 1,212 1,223 -11
11 Orange County Public
Schools, Orlando, FL 10 1,157 4 157 0 59,700 1,167 1,024 143
12 School District of
Philadelphia, PA 121 906 1 144 427 31,350 1,127 1,080 47
13 Prince George’s County School District, Upper
Marlboro, MD 0 1,065 0 85 3 91,150 1,065 1,044 21
14 Montgomery County Public
Schools, Rockville, MD 0 995 0 0 6 92,000 995 989 6
15 Jefferson County Public
Schools, Louisville, KY 41 948 1 60 232 71,476 989 998 -10
16 Duval County School
District, Jacksonville, FL 54 933 14 122 987 53,097 987 975 12
17 Detroit Public Schools,
Detroit, MI 10 951 5 193 347 16,528 961 N/A N/A
18 Charlotte Mecklenburg School District, Charlotte,
NC 0 836 0 51 0 57,613 836 896 -60
19 Cobb County School
District, Marietta, GA 81 721 34 23 0 62,900 802 770 32
20 Clark County School
District, Las Vegas, NV 272 502 154 10 0 69,294 774 699 75
21 Gwinnett County Public Schools, Lawrenceville,
GA 38 721 30 79 0 68,000 759 759 0
22 Baltimore County Public
Schools, Timonium, MD 0 757 0 159 706 65,000 757 752 5
EXHIBIT 13-1 (Continued)
LARGEST 50 NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS FLEETS
Rank School District
Small Buses
Large Buses
Lift- Equipped
Small Buses
Lift- Equipped
Large Buses
Contractor Buses
Pupils
Daily Fleet ‘96
Fleet ‘95 Change vs. ‘95 23 Palm Beach School
District, West Palm Beach
FL 147 583 56 64 0 57,000 730 680 50
24 Wake County Schools,
Raleigh, NC 106 609 30 20 0 50,000 715 688 27
25 Pinellas County School
District, Largo, FL 30 594 10 83 0 39,500 624 N/A N/A
26 Minneapolis Public
Schools, Minneapolis, MN 105 505 28 11 430 53,000 610 550 60
27 East Baton Rouge School
District, Baton Rouge, LA 100 508 0 25 0 45,000 608 626 -18
28 Virginia Beach City Public Schools, Virginia Beach,
VA 25 581 2 86 0 67,070 606 622 -16
29 Columbus Public Schools,
Columbus OH 144 445 20 0 82 30,316 589 643 -54
30 Cleveland Public Schools,
Cleveland, OH 0 585 0 22 0 22,200 585 588 -3
31 School District of Lee
County, Fort Myers, FL 0 578 0 97 0 35,000 578 538 40
32 Anne Arundel County School District, Annapolis,
MD 80 490 45 20 490 51,500 570 555 15
33 San Diego Unified School
District, San Diego, CA 0 559 0 110 113 21,600 559 515 44
34 Rochester City School
District, Rochester, NY 232 311 22 6 446 26,000 543 639 -96
35 St. Louis Public Schools,
St. Louis, MO 0 525 0 0 525 21,000 525 540 -15
36 Brevard County School
District, Cocoa, FL 0 508 0 57 0 26,000 508 528 -20
37t Buffalo City School
District, Buffalo, NY 250 250 40 5 470 37,000 500 450 50
38 Prince William County Public Schools, Bristow,
VA 57 443 14 46 0 33,500 500 490 10
39 Omaha Public Schools,
Omaha, NE 285 210 46 0 213 14,900 495 518 -23
40 Austin Independent School
District, Austin, TX 200 270 27 11 0 23,000 470 487 -17
41 Metro Nashville Public
Schools, Nashville, TN 0 468 0 31 0 48,150 468 460 8
42 Polk County Public
Schools, Bartow, FL 179 278 25 39 0 41,039 457 524 -67
43 Seattle Public Schools,
Seattle, WA 139 311 23 0 450 20,627 450 460 -10
44 Boston Public Schools,
Boston, MA 224 225 48 0 0 35,400 449 642 -193
EXHIBIT 13-1 (Continued)
LARGEST 50 NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS FLEETS
Rank School District
Small Buses
Large Buses
Lift- Equipped
Small Buses
Lift- Equipped
Large Buses
Contractor Buses
Pupils
Daily Fleet ‘96 Fleet ‘95
Change vs. ‘95 45 Cypress-Fairbanks
Independent School District, Houston, TX
53 384 0 47 0 41,950 437 437 0
46 Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School District, Winston-Salem, NC
0 417 0 30 0 25,100 417 400 17
47 Northside Independent School District, Helotes, TX
152 248 32 5 0 27,500 400 370 30
48 Yonkers Public School
District, Yonkers, NY 105 295 40 0 400 20,000 400 N/A N/A
49 Albuquerque Public
Schools, Albuquerque, NM 148 252 0 32 400 33,370 400 399 1
50 Denver Public Schools,
Denver, CO 112 274 0 50 0 28,000 386 390 -4
Source: School Bus Fleet, December 1996.
The funding of transportation is provided by both the state and local tax revenues. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) has never fully funded transportation costs of school districts. State funding has been less than 60 percent for many years until the 1995 legislative session which enacted a revised student transportation funding formula designed to redistribute state funds among the 67 school districts. The current state funding percentage is approximately 80 percent. The old formula distributed money to each county based on a density index determined by dividing the number of students transported by one-half of the number of miles traveled. No additional funding was given for transporting disabled students.
The new formula applies three indices to the number of students transported to determine the school district’s total full-time-equivalent (FTE) students. The three indexes are:
n
a rurality index which indicates the percent of rural residents in the county;
n
the average bus occupancy which is intended to promote efficient utilization of buses; and
n
a Florida price level index which indicates the differences in the cost
of living among the 67 counties in the state.
EXHIBIT 13-2
COMPARISON OF STUDENT RIDERS
FOR 25 LARGEST SCHOOL BUS FLEETS IN THE COUNTRY DECEMBER 1995
Rank Largest 25 School Bus Fleets
Number of Student Riders Daily
Number of Buses
Riders Per Bus 1 New York City Public Schools, NY 148,000 (1) 3,838 39 2 Fairfax County (Alexandria), VA 98,715 (8) 1,232 (5) 80 3 Baltimore County Public Schools, MD 85,413 752 (1) 114 4 Prince George's (Upper Marlboro), MD 84,500 (12) 1,044 (4) 81 5 Gwinnett County (Lawrenceville), GA 81,000 759 (2) 107 6 Montgomery County (Rockville), MD 79,000 989 (6) 80 7 Hillsborough County (Tampa), FL 75,655 (9) 1,223 (12) 62
8 Los Angeles Unified, CA 67,900 (2) 2,577 26
9 Jefferson County (Louisville), KY 67,000 998 (9) 67 10 Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), FL 66,731 (11) 1,051 (10) 63
11 Dade County (Miami), FL 64,219 (5) 1,428 45
12 De Kalb County (Tucker), GA 61,890 800 (8) 77
13 Cobb County (Marietta), GA 61,000 770 (7) 79
14 East Baton Rouge, LA 59,800 725 (3) 82
15 Orange County (Orlando), FL 58,962 1,024 58
16 Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, NC 56,300 896 (11) 63
17 Duval County (Jacksonville), FL 54,700 975 56
18 Milwaukee Public Schools, IL 54,000 (4) 1,440 38 19 Chicago Public Schools, IL 50,000 (3) 2,340 21
20 Dallas County Schools, TX 48,000 (7) 1,323 36
21 Clark County (Las Vegas), NV 43,542 699 (13) 62
22 Houston ISD, TX 41,665 (6) 1,422 40
23 Hawaii Department of Education, HI 37,500 873 43
24 Philadelphia, PA 30,000 (10) 1,080 28
25 Department of Education (St. Louis) 14,000 700 20 26 National Average of 25 Largest Districts 63,580 1,223 18
Source: School Bus Fleet Magazine, December 1995.
Note: (#) represents the numerical ranking for number of buses and riders per bus.
EXHIBIT 13-3
FLORIDA STATUTES AND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULES GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN
SECTION CHAPTER 234, FLORIDA STATUTES:
234.01 Purpose: Transportation When Provided 234.02 Safety and Health of Pupils
234.051 School Buses
234.0515 Transportation of Public School Students by Private Transportation Companies
234.061 Designation of Routes and Nontransportation Zones 234.091 General Qualifications
234.112 School Bus Stops
234.211 Use of School Buses for Public Transportation 234.212 Contract for Transportation Services
234.301 Pool Purchase of School Buses 234.021 Hazardous Walking Conditions
RULE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES -- 6A-3 SERIES 6A-3.001 Basic Principles for Transportation of Students
6A-3.003 Certification as to Specifications of School Buses 6A-3.004 Procedures for Bids for School Buses
6A-3.005 Awarding Contracts for Purchase of School Buses 6A-3.006 Pool Purchase Plan for Purchase of Equipment and
Contractual needs; Department of Management Services, Division of Purchasing Authorized to Negotiate Contracts 6A-3.007 Purchase of Used School Buses
6A-30121 Responsibility of School District and Parents for Students with Special Transportation needs who are Transported at Public Expense
6A-3.0141 Employment of School Bus Drivers
6A-3.0151 School Bus Driver Physical Examination and Medical Examiners Certificate
6A-3.016 Responsibilities of Deputy Commissioner for Educational Programs for Student Transportation
6A-3.017 Responsibilities of School Districts for Student Transportation
6A-3.018 Responsibilities of Superintendent 6A-3.029 Specifications for New School Buses
6A-3.0311 Specific Requirements for Transit Authority Buses Used as School Buses
6A-3.034 Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas as a Motor Fuel in School Buses
6A-3.036 School Bus Driver’s License Check for Suspensions and Revocations
6A-3.307 Alternate Engine Fuels for School Buses
In addition, funding was added for exceptional students. Exhibit 13-4 shows a comparison of similar Florida school districts and the amount of state funding for transportation. The Hillsborough County School District has the second highest exceptional student (ESE) population in 1995-96 at approximately 3,479 full time equivalent (FTE) students which generated $3.35 million. The district received a total of $27,505,317 in state funds for transportation. Based on the state funding formula providing additional funding for ESE students, the district received $3.35 million or approximately 12 percent, in funding related to the high number of ESE transported students. As noted in Exhibit 13-4, the Hillsborough County School District received the largest overall distribution of state funding among the comparison districts. A contributing factor is the large ESE student populations.
Of particular interest is the impact of the old versus new formula on local level of funding requirements. Under the old funding formula, the total transportation expense for 1994-95 reflected a local contribution of approximately $17.7 million compared to the estimated 1995-96 local funding requirements of only $13 million. With the increase in total state percentage contribution and reduced local requirement, the Hillsborough County School District transportation operational funding gained a positive net effect for the district.
The population rurality as reflected in the funding formula is indicated in Exhibit 13-5 for the comparison school districts. Of the school districts compared, the Hillsborough County School District had the highest rural population percentage. The rural population percentage helps determine the distance and potential ridership when developing bus routes.
EXHIBIT 13-4
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION COMPARISONS STATE FUNDING ALLOCATION
1995-96
DISTRICT
STATE FUNDS EARNED
Broward $23,869,459
Duval $19,228,706
Orange $21,158,538
Palm Beach $21,236,040
Pinellas $15,403,751
Hillsborough $27,505,317
State (67 Districts) $354,395,290
Source: Florida Department of Education, Second Transportation Calculation, 1997.
Note: The Hillsborough County School District receives highest state base funding allocation factor ($74,506);
the second highest exceptional student allocation ($3.35 million for 3,479 students); and the 11th lowest percent of rural residents (10.77%).
EXHIBIT 13-5
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION COMPARISON DISTRICT RURAL POPULATION PERCENT
1996-97
DISTRICT
URBAN RESIDENTS
RURAL RESIDENTS
TOTAL RESIDENTS
PERCENT RURALITY
Broward 1,241,667 13,821 1,255,488 1.10%
Duval 664,899 8,072 672,971 1.20%
Orange 630,908 46,583 677,491 6.88%
Palm Beach 817,947 45,571 863,518 5.28%
Pinellas 848,230 3,429 851,659 0.40%
Hillsborough 744,209 89,845 834,054 10.77%
Source: Florida Department of Education. Second Transportation Calculation, 1997.
Although Exhibit 13-2 shows the Hillsborough County School District as the 12th largest school district in the nation in terms of bus occupancy, based on updated 1996-97 Florida Department of Education transportation figures illustrated in Exhibit 13-6, the Hillsborough County School District became the second highest in percentage of bus occupancy among comparison districts in Florida, and 7.7 percent above the statewide average. The district is also the third largest in terms of average number of buses on the road within the state of Florida. The district is 17th overall in the state of Florida for bus occupancy.
Exhibit 13-7 indicates that the Hillsborough County School District drove its buses approximately 19,000,000 miles in 1995-96 using approximately 970 buses of which 632 were used for regular transportation runs, 238 buses used for exceptional student education (ESE), and 101 buses used for the many magnet programs in place within the school district. The use of magnet programs has helped address a long standing desegregation court order as well as provide educational options for children.
EXHIBIT 13-6
AVERAGE BUS OCCUPANCY IN COMPARISON DISTRICTS
DISTRICT
AVERAGE BUSES
AVERAGE BUS OCCUPANCY
Broward 1,065 60.69%
Duval 909 60.11%
Orange 859 64.28%
Palm Beach 568 100.46%
Pinella 563 72.64%
Hillsborough 971 77.74%
State (67 Districts) 13,613 69.98%
Source: Florida Department of Education, Second Transportation Calculation, 1997.
Note: The Hillsborough County School District has the 3rd largest statewide average buses on the road and 17th statewide in average occupancy.
EXHIBIT 13-7 MILES PER PROGRAM
REGULAR EDUCATION, ESE, AND MAGNET PROGRAMS*
1995-96
Program Miles Buses
Regular 10,959,000 632
ESE 4,625,000 238
Magnet 3,416,000 101
TOTAL 19,000,000 971
Source: Transportation Department, 1997.
*Does not include alternative education.
Some state funding formulas provide dollars to support the replacement of school buses. The state of Florida funding formula does not have any factor that considers the replacement of buses and generates dollars to support these costs. School districts in Florida must rely on local funding options to implement any type of bus replacement program. Given state funding for transportation operational costs has never been funded at 100 percent, it is even more difficult to fund capital expenditures for a bus replacement program.
Funding for transportation within the school district comes from several sources as outlined in Exhibit 13-8. The significant change in local and state support is a direct result of the revised state funding formula in 1995-96. In 1995-96, the transportation costs were 3.04 percent of the district’s total appropriation (i.e., full costs including all cost categories). This compared to a 4.2 percent state average and a 4.3 percent national average as reported by Transportation Department statistics.
EXHIBIT 13-8
COMPARISON OF FUNDING SOURCES 1994-95 AND 1995-96
SOURCE FUNDED BY 1994-95 1995-96
Formula (FTE) State $17,700,000 $26,891,000
District Funding Local $24,263,900 $10,339,800
ESE (IDEA) Federal $354,500 $345,500
Service Reimbursements Local $1,100,000 $947,100
Recycling Revenue Local $78,600 $84,100
Medicaid Federal $0 $315,000
Total $43,497,000 $38,922,500
Source: Transportation Department, 1997.
In addition, the Medicaid (a revenue estimate) in Exhibit 13-8 was approved for federal
reimbursement, but has not materialized due to state legal issues being finalized
through the legislative process. Medicaid revenue represents federal funds flowing
through states to individual agencies such as the Hillsborough County School District.
The Medicaid revenue is based on the district’s estimate that approximately 460 students qualify based on selected types of services provided monthly and transported by the Transportation Department. In addition to Medicaid dollars, the exceptional student education IDEA funds represent another federal funding source. These federal funds have been used to purchase five buses for the past several years and represent an alternative funding source to help support the bus replacement program, even if on a very limited and restricted basis.
Exhibit 13-9 reflects the federal ESE level of bus purchase support for the school district.
EXHIBIT 13-9
FEDERALLY FUNDED ESE BUSES IN THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
FY NUMBER COST
TOTAL FUNDED
1997-98 5 $52,257 $261,285
1996-97 5 $47,506 $237,530
1995-96 5 $47,506 $237,530
1994-95 5 $45,680 $228,400
1993-94 5 $39,175 $195,875
Source: Transportation Department, 1997.
In January 1996, a Transportation Budget Advisory Task Force was formed in an effort to assist the district’s Transportation Department find potential budget savings/cost reductions in three levels--a five percent, a 10 percent, and 15 percent reduction level.
In addition, the Task Force was asked to critique the operation of the Transportation Department. The Task Force recommended the adoption of the following principles for use in constructing future transportation budgets by the district:
n
Safety: No change in operation that adversely affects the safety of children should be taken simply due to budgetary reasons.
n
Responsibility: The district is governed by law. Parents bear primary responsibility for safe passage to and from the school or bus stop.
n
Field Trips and Special Programs:
The costs of these programs should be billed back entirely to the requesting or benefiting program.
n
Courtesy Riders: Students who fail to meet requirements and are transported should be billed the full cost of providing the transportation.
n
Outsourcing: he district should continue to outsource any
maintenance, service, supply or other activity
meeting the following criteria:
−
there is no decrease in safety;
−
all federal, state, and district requirements are met;
−
a significant savings is demonstrated by cost comparisons including all direct and indirect savings;
−
savings are of a long-term nature; and
−
the district is not dependent upon a sole source provider.
n
Staff and Drivers: The department should continue high standards for drivers; the district should find ways to increase the attractiveness of driving and staff positions.
n
Public
Transportation:
The Transportation Department should explore every reasonable opportunity to work cooperatively with existing public transportation.
n
Computer-assisted Routing:
The district should avail itself of state-of-the-art computer programs for routing.
n
Bus Replacement: The district should adopt an ongoing 12-year life expectancy bus replacement program and incorporate program into the annual budget.
n
Vandalism: Vandalism should be recognized as an ongoing and significant concern; the district should consider expanding video monitoring to all buses and set a significant punitive fine above the actual cost of repairs to be paid by vandals.
In addition, the Transportation Budget Task Force recommended two legislative actions:
n
Full FTE Funding: The State should fully fund those transportation mandates it places upon the counties. Currently, the FTE formula funds only approximately 80 percent of required transportation effort. The effect is to place transportation needs in competition with academic needs at the district level.
n
Hazardous Conditions Criteria:
The criteria used by the State to determine whether hazardous conditions exist (thereby affecting eligibility for FTE funding) are in serious need of revision. The criteria appear to be written with a rural setting in mind, whereas the vast majority of students bused in the state live in urban settings.
The definition of hazards should speak to
environment factors (e.g. high crime areas) in
addition to traffic speed of sidewalks.
As noted in Chapter 2, according to Department of Education statistics, the Hillsborough County School District had about 190 total school sites in 1995-96 with eight exceptional student centers, four vocational centers, and 23 other type of schools in addition to the regular school sites. The school district was building approximately six schools per year in the early 1990s and currently averages two to three new schools per year.
Exhibit 13-10 displays the number of schools built since 1975.
EXHIBIT 13-10
NEW SCHOOLS OPENED SINCE 1975 IN THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL GRADE
STARTED
CONSTRUCTION YEAR OPENED
1. Knights K-5 1976 1977
2. McDonald K-6 1976 1977
3. Buckhorn K-5 1978 1979
4. Pinecrest K-6 1979 1980
5. Apollo Beach K-5 1982 1983
6. Claywell K-5 1982 1983
7. Lopez K-5 1983 1984
8. Armwood 10-12 1983 1985
9. Gaither 10-12 1983 1985
10. Hill 8-9 1985 1986
11. Bloomingdale 10-12 1985 1987
12. Burns 8-9 1985 1987
13. Caminiti Special ED 1985 1987
14. Essrig ESE 1986 1987
15. Lewis K-5 1986 1987
16. West Tampa K-6 1986 1987
17. Alafia K-5 1987 1988
18. Northwest K-5 1987 1988
19. Maniscalo K-5 1988 1989
20. Tampa Palms K-5 1988 1989
21. Bing K,6 1990 1991
22. Boyette Springs K-5 1990 1991
23. Cypress Creek K-5 1990 1991
24. Lithia Springs K-5 1990 1991
25. Mintz K-5 1990 1991
26. Summerford K-5 1990 1991
27. Walden Lake K-5 1990 1991
28. Cannella K-5 1991 1992
29. Colson K-5 1991 1992
30. Folson K-5 1991 1992
31. Hunters’ Green K-5 1991 1992
32. Lowry K-5 1991 1992
33. Schwarzkopf K-6 1991 1992
34. Durant 9-12 1994 1995
35. Lockhart K,6 1995 1996
FINDING
The Transportation Department formed the Transportation Budget Advisory Task Force in early 1996 to assist the department in identifying potential savings/cost reduction and to critique the operation of the Transportation Department.
The 14-member Task Force was comprised of three citizens and 11 school system employees from throughout the district. The Task Force examined the Transportation Department in three sections:
n
primary mission or FTE generating transportations;
n
ancillary programs; and
n
overhead --- administration, safety, and maintenance.
The primary budget consideration for the Task Force was the sole transportation of children. The analysis work performed by the Task Force utilized the 1994-95 budget as a baseline.
Based on the Task Force’s budget reduction tasks of five percent, 10 percent, and 15 percent, the group made three separate budget restructuring recommendations of
$2,886,000, $4,305,605 and $6,827,302 respectively.
COMMENDATION
The Hillsborough County School District Transportation Department and the Transportation Budget Advisory Task Force are commended for their comprehensive and thorough analysis of the transportation operation and potential cost savings/reductions.
13.2 Management Policies
Without current policies and procedures to establish the management guidelines and directions for a school district to follow, district operations will become reactive and not proactive in their management practices. The Hillsborough County School District Transportation Department has relied on its internal Drivers’ Handbook, Accident Review Board, and department procedures to create the environment to foster safe driving records, secure a better than average claims history, and generate the ability to address numerous non-funded transportation programs without reducing overall levels of support.
CURRENT SITUATION
The existing School Board and Transportation Policies and Procedures have been in a
state of “under revision” for several years. Numerous policies, management practices,
and procedures are no longer relevant. For example, School Board Policy H-33 and
procedure H-335 discuss charging of a fee for service within the two-mile required
Management practices related to the following areas are noted for further discussion:
n
department management information indicators and performance tracking;
n
accident and claim activities;
n
new hire screening criteria and costs;
n
types of student transportation;
n
magnet schools process;
n
non-FTE programs utilizing transportation services;
n
outsourcing;
n
use of transit busing;
n
use of forms, documents and reports;
n
utilization of a State Driver Plan and Accident Review Board; and
n
other management practices.
The State of Florida collects key performance indicators and publishes an annual report by district comparing each school district and, in many instances, calculating a statewide average. Exhibit 13-11 identifies 21 of the statewide reported and tracked transportation data elements. Some key data elements include:
n
percentage of hazardous walking ridership;
n
buses in daily service;
n
total annual miles;
n
transportation expenses;
n
transportation expenses per student; and
n
average bus occupancy.
The significance of the data elements is the ability to compare operational percents,
ratios, expenditures, and other components in a continuing effort to improve operational
efficiency. Elements such as percentage of hazardous walking ridership, buses in daily
service, transportation expense per student, occupancy, and operating expense per
student are only a few of the important data measures tracked by the district providing
beneficial comparative analysis for improved decision making.
EXHIBIT 13-11
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION DATA IN COMPARATIVE DISTRICTS
1995-96
Broward Duval Orange Palm Beach Pinellas Hillsborough State
1. Population Per
Square Mile 1,037 867 744 433 3,042 792 NA
2. District Road Totals
4,660 3,887 3,510 3,719 3,962 4,879 112,499
3. Fall Membership 208,354 123,905 123,064 132,215 104,331 143,192 2,175,233
4. Percentage of District Membership Transported for Oct/Feb. 1995-96
31.37% 43.93% 45.92% 41.35% 37.92% 51.39% 43.07%
5. Percentage of
Courtesy Ridership 5.07% 1.60% 4.82% 0% 9.15% 5.73% 6.96%
6. Percentage of Hazardous
Walking Ridership 1.79% 4.19% 6.58% 2.26% 4.45% 9.24 3.60%
7. Percentage of Teen Parent Ridership
1.15% 0.20% 0.35% 0.09% 0.81% 0.03% 0.53%
8. Percentage of Ridership with
Disabilities 3.63% 5.31% 6.01% 3.60% 8.69% 4.97% 4.83%
9. Buses in Daily
Service 966 846 855 565 529 990 13,166
10. Total Annual Miles
(Inc. Field Trips) 17,231,514 17,096,758 15,678,090 11,683,731 12,157,528 19,000,267 256,364,501 11. Percentage of Daily
Route Miles to
Annual Miles 97.94% 90.66% 95.66% 94.88% 93.43% 88.45% 89.77%
12. Average District Salary Including
Benefits $26,035 $56,929 $18,099 $17,330 $23,011 $24,137 $16,547
13. Transportation
Expenses $49,102,783 $30,540,861 $35,704,212 $21,061,958 $21,307,639 $39,285,441 $527,092,803
14. Bus Purchases $4,432,688 $0 $2,970,677 $448,090 $156,288 $490,663 $35,739,170
15. Transportation Expense Per
Student $713 $548 $618 $377 $525 $516 $550
16. Operating Expenses Per Annual Mile
$2.59 $1.79 $2.09 $1.76 $1.74 $2.04 $1.92
17. Average Bus
Occupancy 67.69 64.33 66.13 96.76 74.86 74.37 68.52
18. Median Bus Model
Year 1991 1990 1989 1991 1989 1990 1988
19. Operating Expense as a Percent of Total District Expense
4.40% 5.26% 5.57% 2.81% 3.75% 5.12% 4.59%
20. Percent State Funds
48.83% 63.19% 57.23% 93.46% 66.69% 64.88% 65.83%
21. Percent Local Funds
51.17% 36.81% 42.77% 6.54% 33.31% 35.12% 34.17%
Source: State Department of Education, Transportation, 1997.
Section 234.01, Florida Statutes, address safety and health of pupils related to transportation of school children. Specifically, this section states:
Maximum regard for safety and adequate protection of health shall be primary requirements which shall be observed by school boards in routing buses, appointing drivers, and providing and operating equipment, in accordance with all requirements of law and regulations of the state board in providing transportation pursuant to Section 234.01, Florida Statutes.
The State Department of Education Transportation Division defines an accident as
$500 in damage or any injury (complaint of injury included) to a student who is regularly transported. The Hillsborough County School District expands the State definition of an accident to include any contact made by a vehicle with a person, vehicle, or object (no matter how minor). All incidents are required to be reported immediately to the Transportation Department which, in turn, reports the accident to the proper law enforcement agency. The district has an active Accident Review Board that evaluates every reported accident.
State Board Rule 6A-3 outlines a school district’s responsibilities related to the use of transit busing. Within the Tampa area, there are at least eight additional private transportation firms available to support the needs of the school district.
Exhibit 13-12 identifies several firms and their typical charges.
Transportation policies include requirements for student ridership. State law indicates a 65-passenger maximum bus load capacity and Hillsborough County School District route coordinators review each transported FTE to determine if the number falls below a certain ridership ratio.
EXHIBIT 13-12
PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY CHARGES
COMPANY
MINIMUM
HOURS HOURLY RATE
AVERAGE COST PER TRIP
Ascot Bus Lines 3 $40.00 $180
Astro Bus Lines 3 $40.00 $160
First Class Coach Co. 4 $53.00 $212
Gulf Coast Motor Line 5 $48.00 $240
Haye's Transportation 4 $30.00 $120
Precision Charters, Inc 5 $47.00 $235
Unicorn Charter, Inc 5 $47.00 $235
Hillsborough County School District 3 $18.50 $116
(and $1.25 per mile) Source: Transportation Department, 1997.
The district maintains a transportation policy related to the replacement standard for school buses. The standard has recently changed from a 10-year life cycle to a 12- year life cycle. It is the intent of the Transportation Department to maintain buses an additional three years, as a spare, beyond the 12-year life cycle for a total of 15 years.
The Transportation Department Drivers’ Handbook outlines management practices for handling student misbehavior or vandalism on the bus. In addition, Transportation Department policies and procedures outline how to handle student/parent complaints.
At the beginning of each school year, a letter is sent to all schools for distribution to parents. The letter must be signed and returned. This letter outlines the transportation policies and rules for both students and parents.
During school hours, buses are available from 9:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. for local educational field trips. As required by internal management practice, requested times out of this range are not guaranteed, and all buses must return by 1:30 p.m. After- school buses are normally available at 5:15 p.m. Buses are not provided during school hours, on site-based management early release dates, or secondary school exam dates. Special needs of students such as a wheel chair for field trips incur an additional cost of $11.00 per hour for the use of a bus rider.
Total Quality Management is practiced within the department in an attempt to ensure public complaints are dealt with responsibly. In fact, in an effort to maintain open communication with staff and the community, the Transportation Department issues informative data in the form of commonly asked questions about the use of school buses on field trips to assist schools and other sites to become knowledgeable about the process and requirements.
The district utilizes an aged automated maintenance monitoring system as well as an automated fuel management system. The automated maintenance system and electronic fuel management system provide numerous management reports to assist in the management of the operations of the department.
FINDING
The results of the MGT survey reported that 64 percent of the administrators indicated pupil transportation was adequate or outstanding while 50 percent of the principals indicated that pupil transportation needed some improvement or major improvement.
Similar to principals, 43 percent of the teachers indicated pupil transportation was adequate while 36 percent stated transportation needed some improvement. When comparing to survey results in other school systems, the teachers were basically identical noting that 44 percent felt pupil transportation was adequate. When combining all administrators and comparing to other school systems, 37 percent of the Hillsborough County administrators stated that transportation needed some improvement while other systems gave this response only 29 percent.
The district maintains a Safe Driver Plan established to prevent the hiring of an
unqualified applicant and to manage the driving record of bus drivers. All bus drivers,
mail carriers, garbage carriers, and all other personnel who have driving responsibilities
have their personal driving record included in the Safe Driver Plan point system. The
plan is administered by a Safe Driver Plan Committee who has an annual review schedule of each driving record. Any violation accumulates points according to an established schedule of violation categories with assigned points. As a result of excessive points, a driver can receive a written warning, multiple day suspension, or termination. Accidents are reviewed by the District Accident Review Board for a determination as to whether an accident was preventable. Based on Department of Education criteria, the district had 20 accidents reported.
Exhibit 13-13 displays the district’s standards and reflects a total of 187 accidents for the 1995-96 school year.
EXHIBIT 13-13
SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT INFORMATION
School # of Buses on # of Miles # of Accidents
Year the Road Driven Preventable Non-
Preventable
Undecided Total
1993-94 947 17,936,00 72 131 0 203
1994-95 967 18,061,165 74 143 0 217
1995-96 972 19,000,267 52 135 0 187
1996-97 971 N/A 29 52 2 83
School Year
Total Accidents
Per Bus
Preventable Accidents Per Bus
Mile Per Accident % of Preventable
Accidents
1993-94 .21 .08 88,355 35%
1994-95 .22 .08 83,231 34%
1995-96 .19 .05 101,606 28%
1996-97 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Transportation Department, 1997.
Based on the school bus accidents reported in Exhibit 13-14, the district had a total claim cost of approximately $373,000 for 1994-1995. Exhibit 13-14 indicates a five- year average cost of bus accident claims at approximately $264,000.
The Hillsborough County School District is self-insured through a third-party administrator and utilizes an Internal Claims Committee to review all claims with legal council. Each year, the school district evaluates its self-insurance program to ensure it is cost effective.
COMMENDATION
The Transportation Department is commended for the long-term emphasis on bus accident awareness resulting in an exemplary accident record.
The district has utilized its Accident Review Board and Safe Driver Plan to maintain an
accident awareness program and to maintain a noteworthy bus accident record of no
serious accidents in over 15 years of transporting students. The data contained in
Exhibits 13-13 and 13-14 show fewer accidents and accident claims than in other large
EXHIBIT 13-14
SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT CLAIMS
YEAR AMOUNT OF CLAIM
1995 $372,542.50
1994 105,024.88
1993 453,022.95
1992 139,700.00
1991 247,501.00
1990 32,960.00
1989 85,749.25
1988* $1,455,000.58
Average for Last Eight Years $181,875.07 Average for Last Five Years $263,558.27 Source: Transportation Department, 1997.
Note: These claims are covered by the Self Insurance
Fund administered by a third-party administrator called Alexis.
*The $1.4 million figure noted for 1988 represents all prior year’s claims combined.
In several locations throughout the school district, legally mandated, safety-related communication is appropriately posted.
The Hillsborough County School District has established an accident awareness program with the implementation of its Accident Review Board and State Driver Plan.
In addition, the district has made use of manuals and procedures to communicate the expectations of the department.
FINDING
Florida law mandates that students be transported home-to-school-to-home for the regular school year --- a total of 180 days. Currently, the district provides busing for programs and activities beyond the regular bus requirements. Special programs include runs for the numerous magnet programs, alternative education programs, and additional programs that are non-FTE generating programs. The district has also been transporting students for special activity runs related to the Board’s good faith effort towards the desegregation court order.
The district transports more than 75,000 students on approximately 2,200 transportation runs with almost 1,000 buses. Exhibit 13-15 indicates that the district transports 91.6 percent regular education students, 3.4 percent magnet program students, 4.8 percent exceptional student education students, and .13 percent alternative education students.
The district is currently using nine buses, 21 transportation runs, and transporting 104
students for the alternative education program. The average count per run in Exhibit
13-15 represents the number of students transported and the average number of
students per bus on each run. In addition, the district utilizes HART Line Transit
System to transport secondary alternative education students who live outside the
established boundaries.
EXHIBIT 13-15
STUDENTS TRANSPORTED IN THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96
Magnet Programs 3.41%
Regular Education 91.63%
ESE 4.83%
Alternative Education 0.13%
PROGRAM # OF BUSES # OF RUNS
TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS TRANSPORTED
AVERAGE STUDENT COUNT PER RUN
AVERAGE STUDENT COUNT
PER BUS
PERCENT OF TOTAL TRANSPORTED
Alternative Education 9 21 104 4.95 11.56 0.13%
Exceptional Student Education 238 499 3,736 7.49 15.70 4.83%
Magnet Programs 103 100 2,640 26.40 25.63 3.41%
Regular Education 643 1,549 70,919 44.49 110.29 91.63%
TOTAL 993 2,169 77,399 34.96 77.94 100.00%
Source: Transportation Department, 1997.
On October 5, 1971, the Board approved the use of school buses for satellite areas for after-school activities. Busing students outside their regular attendance area to provide them a chance to participate in after-school activities was a good faith effort to support court-ordered desegregation. Exhibit 13-16 provides a representative sample of the square miles in the main attendance area zones. These data are presented to provide a picture of the variances of square miles traveled between attendance areas and factors to be considered when analyzing utilization of buses.
EXHIBIT 13-16
ACTIVITY BUS UTILIZATION AND SQUARE MILES 1994-95
SQUARE MILES IN MAIN ATTENDANCE AREA
HIGH SCHOOL MILES
Plant 13.15
Robinson 18.85
Easy Bay 233.33
Tampa Bay Tech 1,265.31
JUNIOR HIGH MILES
Adams 12.94
Burns 18.89
Hill 77.2
Turkey Creek 237.72
Source: Transportation Department, 1997.
Based on figures provided by the Transportation Department, the average cost per activity bus per year is approximately $6,300 for 1995-96. It takes approximately 38 buses to support the program to allow for some schools requiring more than one activity bus and the need for back-up drivers. The cost of $6,300 for approximately 38 buses totals to almost $240,000 to maintain the activity buses.
Activity runs represent just one of many non-FTE funded state programs. Exhibit 13-17 displays approximately 35 non-FTE funded programs which require expenditure of transportation resources.
The efforts of the Transportation Budget Advisory Task Force recognized the
opportunity for the Transportation Department to bill several activities for actual costs to
at least cover expenditures. The lunch runs, space shuttle, field trips and courtesy
riders were all areas that were subsequently adjusted by the Transportation
Department based on the recommendations of the Transportation Budget Advisory
Task Force. The six largest areas of continuing opportunity for changes to cover costs
are in the areas of the activity runs, community-based training, courtesy riders, summer
school, health clinics, and a modified school calendar at Boyette Springs.
EXHIBIT 13-17
NON-FTE FUNDED PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE 1994-1995
(ADJUSTED FOR 1996 CHANGES)
PROGRAM PURPOSE EXPENDITURE REVENUE
COST TO TRANSPORTATION
Activity Runs Transport students to satellite areas after athletic practice $208,942.99 $208,942.99
Boyette Springs Modified Calendar School
Additional cost of transporting intercessions $16,896.38 $16,896.38
Camp Kaleidoscope Summer Program
Program provides career exploration to ESE and disadvantaged 7th grade students. Students are allowed to utilize Tampa Tech bus stops to attend program. Cost is associated with field trips to various local businesses.
Funded by Federal Perkins Act.
$4,445.95 $4,445.95 $0.00
Camp Keystone Summer Program
A service learning project which provides building and landscaping training to participants. Sponsored by the Hillsborough Education Foundation and funded by a state grant.
$2,121.00 $2,121.00 $0.00
Center Excellence Summer Program
Programs for under-privileged, at risk, pre-k, and honor students. Funded by a state grant.
$1,156.32 $1,156.32 $0.00
Community-Based Training Transport ESE students to various sites for job training. Previously State FTE funded. Funding possibilities are being sought for next year. Additional requests for service for this year are being funded by other sources on a field trip basis.
$256,259.32 $256,259.32
Courtesy Riders
Under two-mile transportation
Transporting students who are not FTE funded due to distance from school.
Some adjustments made for hazardous walking in 1995-96 fiscal year.
$286,969.00 $100,000.00 $168,969.00
Daycare Contracts Provide transportation to daycare centers. Reimbursed by daycare centers. $9,332.10 $9,332.10 $0.00 Daycare Swim
Summer Program
Instructional swim provided for participants in the Adult and Community Education’s summer daycare program. Paid for by weekly tuition from parents.
$9,593.10 $9,593.10 $0.00
EXHIBIT 13-17 (Continued)
NON-FTE FUNDED PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE 1994-1995
(ADJUSTED FOR 1996 CHANGES)
PROGRAM PURPOSE EXPENDITURE REVENUE
COST TO TRANSPORTATION Daycare trips Field trips for children enrolled in the Adult and Community Education’s
daycare program. Paid for by weekly tuition from parents.
$16,989.49 $16,989.49 $0.00
ESE Swim Summer Program
Instructional swim for ESE students. Funded by district funds. $35,432.60 $35,432.60 $0.00
Extended Day After-school program for secondary students. Funded by state grants. $65,949.58 $65,949.58 $0.00 Extended Day Program
Summer Program
Various schools who participated in the Extended Day Program.
Funded by state grant.
$2,691.98 $2,691.98 $0.00
Field Trips Field trips to various sites. Previously were reimbursed for school to school expenses only. Difference was calculated by determining time and miles traveled from school which is not charged to the school.
Increased rate from $16.50 to $18.50 per hour plus $1.25 per mile in fiscal year 1995-96.
$709,686.55 $709,686.55 $0.00
Gifted Field Trips Summer Program
Transportation for Aquatic Invertebrate, Marine Biology, Visual Arts, and Math and Science Camp students to visit various sites relative to their studies.
$13,066.01 $13,066.01 $0.00
Health Clinics Transport nursing students for clinical training. $22,807.68 $22,807.68
IDEA
Individual with Disabilities Education Act
Federal funds to replace ESE buses. $251,000.00 $251,000.00 $0.00
IDEA
Individual with Disabilities Education Act
Federal funds to purchase harnesses, wheelchair locks, etc. $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00
IDEA
Individual with Disabilities Education Act
Federal funds to cover the fringe benefits of individuals being paid by IDEA funds.
$20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00
