TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION INTRODUCTION 1 METHODOLOGY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 CONTRACTS 4 FACILITY 5 FINANCIAL 6 FLEET 7 LABOR 8 MAINTENANCE 9

(1)

(2)

Transportation Efficiency Study for South Colonie Central Schools by TAS

Transportation Advisory Services (TAS) was engaged to perform an analysis of the student transportation program of the South Colonie Central School District (hereinafter referred to as “District”). The purpose of this Study was to provide a third-party perspective on the operating efficiency of the current transportation system.

The District’s liaison for the project was Sherri Fisher, Assistant Superintendent for Management Services and Strategic Planning. Mark A. Walsh, CMC, served as the Project Leader for TAS with John Fahey, Senior Consultant of Tyler Technologies (VersaTrans) performing the detailed routing analysis included in this study.

An overview of all aspects of the transportation program was sought by the District. In this period of tight finances and declining revenues, savings that can be generated in support services frees up monies to be used for educational purposes. The looming budget difficulties create a necessity for districts to challenge historical practices, and to make tough decisions on service levels and past employment practices. Districts throughout the State are modifying the ways that things have “always been done”, with an eye toward better utilization of scarce education dollars.

We believe it is important to note that students are transported home-to-school-to-home every day in a safe, reliable manner. By all appearances the District has employed high quality drivers who are respectful of both the students and the residents of the community. The South Colonie Central School District (as of October, 2012) reported an enrollment of 5,105 students in District schools, grades K through 12. 5,513 students are reported as being transported (includes private/parochial and special education), plus approximately 10 to 15 students using public transportation services.

Transportation is provided using a four-tier routing system to the District schools:

SCHOOL GRADES BUILDING TIMES

Colonie Central High School 9-12 7:15 — 2:10

Sand Creek Middle School 5-8 7:45 — 2:32

Lisha Kill Middle School 5-8 8:15 — 3:02

Forest Park Elementary K-4 8:46 — 3:00

STUDY PROFILE

(4)

Shaker Road Elementary K-4 8:46 — 3:00

Roessleville Elementary K-4 9:11 — 3:25

Saddlewood Elementary K-4 9:11 — 3:25

Veeder Elementary K-4 9:11 — 3:25

According to State Transportation Aid reports, the District encompasses 21.628 square miles. Based on the State’s transportation aid reports, the District receives a gross transportation aid rate of 55.9% and traveled 849,910 miles during the 2011-2012 school year.

Included in the Routing section of this report is a detailed routing and bell time analysis performed using the District’s routing software, VersaTrans. This report provides significant detail on the current program, observations about the protocols in use in the South Colonie CSD, and recommendations for areas that should be addressed in order to achieve savings in the future.

Throughout this report we provide our perspectives and recommendations on a number of areas including the facility, labor issues, management procedures, and policy and service levels.

We commend the District for their willingness to conduct a third-party

review of the program. We often caution districts… “Don’t ask the

question if you don’t want to hear the answer”. The South Colonie

Central School District has been willing to be open and cooperative in our review of the District’s transportation services.

Hopefully, this report will provide the Administration with a thorough understanding of the issues, and insights on the pro’s and con’s of making the type of changes which would help the program continue to meet the community’s needs at the lowest possible cost.

In order to facilitate the review and use of this report, most of the sections have been presented using a “bullet” format. This allows a succinct presentation of the issues, and we believe enhances the on-going use of the report as a resource for the Administration and District personnel.

Everyone involved was extremely cooperative and provided us with everything we requested. We would like to thank those individuals for their assistance in this study process.

(5)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 2 - Page 1

METHODOLOGY

On November 26, 2012 the South Colonie Central School District issued a Request for Proposal for Transportation Consultant Services. Transportation Advisory Services (TAS) submitted a responsive proposal on December 21, 2012.

On February 12, 2013 the Board of Education accepted the TAS proposal. A letter confirming the TAS selection was issued by the District on March 1, 2013.

Subsequent to the proposal’s acceptance, the following activities were undertaken as part of our analysis:

1. On February 15, 2013 TAS submitted to the District an extensive data request in order to develop background information on the current transportation program. The District provided detailed responses to the TAS request over the course of the study.

2. On March 11, 2013 the TAS Consultant conducted a group interview with the Assistant Superintendent for Management Services, Superintendent, and Athletic Director. This interview was intended to discuss the scope of the study, the study process, and specific operating issues of interest during the study.

3. During the March 11th_{visit to the District, the TAS consultant}

met with three members of the Business Office to discuss the use of outside contractors, including the bidding process and market conditions.

4. In order to meet the routing analysis needs of the District, TAS engaged the services of Tyler Technologies (VersaTrans) to review the District data and to explore various options. To this end, VersaTrans uploaded the District’s database on March 13, 2013 to their system in order to expedite a remote review of the information. Subsequent telephone and email communications occurred between the District and VersaTrans.

5. On April 15, 2013 TAS provided the District with a draft copy of the VersaTrans analysis.

(6)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 2 - Page 2 6. Based upon discussions with the District, and recommendations

from TAS, the District established interview schedules with key stakeholders which occurred on April 29, 2013:

♦ Head Auto Mechanic ♦ Dispatcher

♦ Transportation Department staff members ♦ Transportation Supervisor

♦ Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Management Services

♦ Open meeting for drivers, attendants and mechanics. 16 employees attended this optional meeting.

♦ Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, Maintenance Supervisor and Custodial Supervisor

♦ CSEA President

♦ 3 members of the Board of Education Transportation Committee ♦ Supervisor of Pupil Services and Assistant Superintendent for

Instruction

♦ K-4 Building Principal

7. Numerous additional documents and analyses were provided by the District in response to questions raised during the analysis process. Throughout the review process, additional items were discussed or provided through the use of telephone conversations, letters, fax communications, or email.

The District staff members were exceptionally responsive in providing all information requested in a thorough and timely fashion.

8. This document constitutes our written report to the District. A copy of this report is being provided to various District representatives, including Administrators and Board Members. A copy of the report should be provided to the State Education Department as supporting information for the District’s request for transportation aid. This report is intended to serve as an advisory document and resource for the District, and as such it should be reviewed and evaluated by the District for its applicability to the circumstances at the time of review.

9. The following information was utilized as a part of our analysis of the District’s transportation program:

(7)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 2 - Page 3  Driver schedules

 Line item financial reports, and various budget documents  NYS Transportation Aid reports

 Board Transportation Policies & Administrative Regulations  CSEA Local 1000 Labor Agreement

 Support Supervisors’ and Technicians’ Association

Agreement

 Teamsters Local 294 Labor Agreement  Detailed wage and benefit data

 Numerous payroll and attendance reports  Fleet data

 Transportation Aid Output Report (TRA)  VersaTrans routing reports and database  Job Descriptions

 Various special needs transportation contracts

 Miscellaneous District-prepared analyses and reports

TAS uses available information and its experience to estimate the potential costs and/or savings of particular transportation service arrangements described in this study. Although past experience can be an excellent basis for projections, TAS does not warrant that the costs or savings estimated herein will be realized if implemented.

(8)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As stated in the Introduction section of this report, the comments contained herein pertain to those aspects of the engagement that are within the scope of the study as determined by the District.

This report contains a number of recommendations. We suggest that the District request that the Director of Transportation review the report in detail with the intention of summarizing the recommendations, and responding with comments or changes. In those instances where the recommendations should move forward, the Director should propose a timeline for implementation along with an estimate on the cost or potential savings. The Department should then be held accountable for the implementation.

In those instances where there is a disagreement with the suggestions or recommendations in this report, the Director should document the disagreement and support the Department’s position. Alternatively, a different approach to the same end could be recommended by the Department.

Recommendations pertaining to each section of this report are embodied in those sections. They are also included here in summary for easy reference. For a more definitive discussion of each topic, please refer to the section itself. The following recommendations are not listed in any prioritized order.

● The District should evaluate developing bid specifications based on

mileage, time and/or vehicle types in order to develop greater flexibility and reduce the need for multiple bids.

● The Transportation Department should be charged for all services

performed by the Buildings and Grounds Department in order to maximize transportation aid on the services provided.

● The Transportation Aid Output Report is a valuable document that

should be reviewed annually to identify significant changes or deviations from historical numbers.

● Considerations of net aid should be taken into account when

reviewing true transportation costs.

Section 6 – FINANCIAL Section 5 – FACILITY PROCESS RECOMMENDATION Section 4 – CONTRACTS

(9)

● Family benefit costs, and legacy costs, are not considered an aidable

transportation expense.

● The regional comparability data should be reviewed, and the

Department should review the Key Performance Indicators on an annual basis.

● The District will need to be sensitive to mileage associated with

services provided to others due to the negative transportation aid impact.

● The District’s “roster” of spare buses is consistent with industry

standards.

● The District’s fleet replacement program appears to be consistent

and thorough.

● The Department should be commended for their aggressive focus on

reducing maintenance costs through “saving” quality parts from buses being replaced.

● The installation of pre-heaters will benefit the District through a

reduction in utility costs.

● The amount of paid time off should be addressed in future labor

agreements.

● The District should have the right to pay per diem subs whatever

hourly rate is necessary in order to attract and retain qualified people in the competitive marketplace.

● The guaranteed length of day for many of the drivers exceeds the

actual time needed to perform the driving function, thereby resulting in excess labor costs.

● The District should transition to a program of “call-in” subs as

opposed to the current practice of unassigned drivers. As a part of this process, changes will be required to the office staffing schedule.

● The payment of overtime to drivers, when other drivers at

straight-time are available, should be eliminated.

● Excessive run guarantees for short shuttles and extra-curricular

runs should be addressed.

Section 7 - FLEET

Section 8 – LABOR

(10)

● The District should have the absolute management right to share

runs of any type with other districts.

● Buses should not be assigned to specific drivers, but should be

allocated to runs as determined by management to be the most effective utilization of assets.

● Bus monitors should be differentiated in future labor agreements

from other monitors employed in the District.

● An effective attendance incentive program should be developed and

funded through savings in paid time off benefits.

● The provision of family benefits to part-time employees should be

modified during labor negotiations.

● A detailed review of the Effective Hourly Rate of drivers should be

conducted.

● The maintenance staffing levels are consistent with industry

standards. We do not support the planned reduction in maintenance staffing that was mentioned to us during our review.

● The Department has a history of performing body work and body

prop work that would typically sent to outside contractors.

● DOT maintenance histories are commendable.

● The maintenance department has been very active in continuing the

education and training of the mechanics which should be commended.

● The fleet maintenance software should be accessible to all

mechanics, and work order entries should be done by the maintenance staff.

● Maintenance labor for the maintenance software should be based on

a consistent shop rate developed by calculating a loaded hourly rate for the staff members.

● The office staffing in the Department is appropriate given the scope

of District services. However, if the District transitions to the “call-in” sub model recommended in this report, supplemental staffing in the morning will be required.

Section 9 – MAINTENANCE

Section 10 – MANAGEMENT

(11)

● The Department is considered very responsive based on interviews

with stakeholders.

● The District’s in-house driver training program is working well. We

recommend that the District work with other districts in the region to share common training programs.

● There should be an annual meeting between the drivers/monitors

and the building principals and the Athletic Director.

● The Director of Transportation should hold periodic customer

meetings with various key transportation users.

● Aggressive sharing throughout the transportation program should

be a key focus of the Department.

● The implementation of GPS could provide substantial savings to the

District, assuming greater flexibility with labor costs can be achieved.

● The Department should be held accountable for achieving specified

goals, including a detailed review and response to this report.

● The Board Policies addressing transportation should be reviewed

and updated.

● Future policies should be developed by taking into consideration the

“tests” provided in this section.

● The District should be addressing the establishment of more

consistent stop locations, including an attempt to reduce the number of stops made on runs.

● The implementation of a Child Safety Zone policy should be

considered by the District.

● Late bus pass information should be maintained in the school

buildings.

● Although modifying the bell times is a difficult process, the

demographic changes that have occurred in the past 20+ years should be considered with a detailed review of options to increase the time between dismissals . Section 11 – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Section 12 – ROUTING

(12)

● A ridership audit should be conducted three times a year. Based on

the actual ridership data, route consolidations should occur.

● The detailed VersaTrans report should be reviewed, and specific

(13)

CONTRACTS

• The District utilizes one year bids for various transportation services that cannot be performed by District resources due to unique

vehicle requirements, or personnel limitations. These runs are

typically services required for students with special needs, and are bid by a specific route. Contracts can be extended for future years pursuant to State regulations on cost increases.

For the 2011-2012 school year, the District identified 24 separate

contracts representing services, aides or mileage with a total expenditure of $224,794.

The District utilizes standard specifications which are then customized for the specific services required. We have reviewed the specifications and they are consistent with industry standards.

• Given the amount of work required to develop and issue separate contracts for services under the current format of bidding by route, the District should consider general pricing based on mileage and/or time and/or vehicle type. In this way, the District could engage a contractor for general services, regardless of the specific route description, thereby eliminating the need to issue and bid so many independent routes.

For example, the District would solicit bids for a 16 passenger van, equipped for two wheelchairs, including an aide, for one or two hours for the AM and PM and restricted to “x” miles. This type of bid price could then apply to mulitiple runs.

In order to develop the appropriate pricing format, the District would need to evaluate their current runs to ascertain common run times, or mileages, to use in formatting the bids.

This recommendation is not meant in any way to criticize the current process. It is meant simply to offer an alternative approach that may be able to reduce the workload and some small level of legal ad expenses.

(14)

FACILITY

• The District operates a transportation center located at 2 Winston Place, Albany, NY. The Center consists of two structures with the main facility housing all offices and maintenance, and a secondary facility for bus parking (12 bays with buses parked two deep).

• The bus garage includes five work bays in the original building with three of the bays having limited bay length and no lifts. Two of the bays meet DOT requirements for head room and bay length. There is a small adjacent work facility that houses two bays with two lifts, thereby providing a total of four bus lifts. There is a relatively small parts room in the original facility.

• The Transportation Center requires occasional repairs and maintenance from the District’s B&G Department. Given that all direct transportation expenses are eligible for transportation aid, the B&G Department should charge the Transportation Department for any work performed, including all parts, supplies and labor. This would then qualify as a legitimate transportation expense for aid purposes. LOCATION BUS GARAGE BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS REPAIRS

(15)

FINANCIAL

• As part of our study of the District’s program, we reviewed the

Transportation Aid Output Report (TRA) issued by the State

Education Department. This detailed report identifies transportation related expenses, and is used as the basis for the calculation of transportation aid to the District.

Transportation aid is payable in the school year following the actual expense. Therefore, the transportation aid payable to the District during the 2012-2013 school year is based on actual expenses that

occurred during the 2011-2012 school year. A copy of the TRA is

included in the Appendix to this report.

Following is a summary of key items shown on the TRA for the past

four years:

We believe that it’s important to explore what is included within each category, and what it means to the District.

Annual Miles — This is fairly self-explanatory; however, it is important to note that contracted miles are not included in the reported mileage. Therefore, as the District used contracted services over the four years, the mileage associated with these runs was not part of the District’s reported mileages. Therefore, the decreased reported mileage over the

TRANSPORTATION AID

2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009

Annual Miles 849,910 855,149 856,904 886,177

Other Purpose Miles Ratio 4.51% 5.21% 7.49% 7.67%

Non-Allowable Pupil Decimal 9.48% 9.48% 9.48% 8.13%

Transportation Aid Rate 55.9% 58.8% 55.8% 54.4% Personal Services (Wages) $2,643,753 $2,598,769 $2,585,235 $2,519,285

Benefits $813,868 $668,252 $971,435 $975,919

Supplies & Materials $551,923 $568,145 $471,551 $510,937

Contractual Expenses $193,805 $256,606 $231,005 $275,688

Public Service Buses $1,456 $0 $0 $0

Total Contract Expense $224,794 $381,603 $437,758 $587,671

Operating Expense Summary $4,429,599 $4,473,375 $4,696,984 $4,869,500

Trans Supervisors Office $281,636 $263,806 $263,479 $236,344

Assumed Capital Expense $549,884 $553,063 $519,407 $395,645

Gross Transportation Expense $5,261,119 $5,290,244 $5,479,870 $5,501,489

Revenues $31,501 $4,718 $763 $0

Transportation Aid $2,542,752 $2,667,761 $2,582,950 $2,553,993

Effective Aid Rate 48.6% 50.5% 47.1% 46.4% Transportation Aid Output Report (TRA)

(16)

four years implies a level of routing efficiency given that the use of contracted services materially decreased during this four year period.

Other Purpose Miles Ratio — Other purpose miles are “non-aidable”

miles such as athletic trips. This ratio is developed by dividing the total “other purpose” miles by the total miles. This is an important ratio (%) as it is used throughout the aid calculation to calculate a reduction in the amount of expense that is eligibile for transportation aid. For example, the 4.51% ratio from last year is multiplied by each expense category and the resulting dollar amount is reduced from the District’s aidable expenses. Therefore, if the District spent $100,000 on a certain expense category, the amount of aid paid would be calculated on only $95,490 instead of the $100,000.

The “other purpose” ratio can vary each year depending on the athletic trip mileage, and the total miles. If the athletic trip mileage stays the same each year, but the District contracts more runs and therefore reports less mileage, the ratio would increase and more expense categories would be decreased.

Conversely, if the District is able to decrease athletic trip mileage, the level of “aidable” expenses will increase. As shown on the above chart, the “other purpose” miles ration has signficantly decreased over the past four years, thereby assisting with improving the level of transportation aid provided to the District. As we mention in the

Labor section of this report, it is very important that the District have the absolute ability to share athletic runs with other districts in order to decrease trip mileage, and therefore decrease costs while increasing aid.

It is our understanding that the District performs some shuttling of buses for athletic runs because the drivers are not available to take the teams during the PM run times. One driver will shuttle the teams to a location and another driver will then go back to pick up the athletes. This process will increase the Other Purpose miles, thereby increasing the aid deduction ratio and reducing overall transportation aid. We believe this process should be eliminated.

Non-Allowable Pupil Decimal — This is a ratio, similar to the “other

purpose” ratio, that is used to reduce the amount of aidable expenses. The non-allowable pupil decimal represents the number of students that are transported that are not eligible for Transportation Aid. These are students living within 1.5 miles of their school buildings.

(17)

The decimal is based on student miles (eligible and non-eligible) and is calculated every three years.

Any actions that the District can take to reduce the number of students that are transported who live within 1.5 miles of their assigned building will help to reduce this ratio and would increase the expenses eligible for aid.

Transportation Aid Rate — This is the Transportation Aid rate

assigned by the State. It is based on four potential calculations as determined by the State, but in most cases is based on a resident wealth calculation. Generally, this rate will increase for rural, less wealthy districts and decrease for districts considered wealthy by the State. The minimum Transportation Aid Rate is 6.5% and the maximum is 90%.

Personal Services — These are reported wages for employees

considered by the State to be eligible for transportation aid. This would include drivers, mechanics, office staff, and bus aides for students with special needs. Any bus aides which are employed by the district for discipline or other non-mandated reasons would not be included for aid purposes.

It is important to keep in mind that any services provided by contractors would not be shown in this category.

Benefits — This is the amount of benefits provided directly to

transportation employees. It is very important to note that family benefits are not aidable, and therefore are not reported. Legacy costs are also not an aidable expense. Family benefits and legacy costs are considered by the State to be a local taxpayer cost. As can be seen in the table above, the Benefits category has experienced a significant fluctuation over the past four years… and this does not include family benefit costs or legacy costs.

For the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the District had $134,537 of non-aidable family benefits. As we detail in the Labor portion of this report, any labor agreement changes that can be made to reduce these non-aided expenses — even increasing wages to compensate for the reduction in

family benefits — would result in increased transportation aid. For the

purposes of an example only, if this entire family benefit cost could be adjusted to a wage-related expense (consideration would need to be given to other wage and tax costs), the District would receive an extra $75,206 in transportation aid (at gross aid rate).

(18)

In addition to the reported incremental family benefit costs, the District reported $139,196 in retiree health benefits which are also not eligible for transportation aid.

Obviously, the District will not be able to transition all family benefits into some other category of employee compensation. However, any movement or adjustment can have a dramatic effect on the District’s aid income under the current Transportation Aid rules.

Supplies and Materials — This is fairly self-explanatory as this

category is principally made up of fuel, parts and lubricants. The cost has not changed dramatically over the past four years which is impressive given the impact of fuel prices on transportation. Keep in mind that the use of contracted services has decreased the need for bus miles and fuel.

Contractual Expenses — This category includes a number of items

including outside repair of buses, insurance, utilities, physical exams, maintenance services, and more. Given the decrease in this category over the past four years, there is an implication that more maintenance work is being done “in-house”.

Total Contract Expense — This is the value of outside contracted

transportation services. The dollar value of outside contracts has signficantly decreased over the past four years.

Grand Total Transportation Expense — This is the total operating

expense reported on the State Aid forms. It does not include bus purchases or family benefits.

Transportation Aid — This is the total Transportation Aid actually

paid to the District after the non-aidable deductions mentioned above.

Effective Aid Rate — This is the effective, or actual, aid that the

District receives after reducing the expenses due to the various deductions mandated by the State. This figure represents a more realistic picture of the transportation aid that the District receives. • Over the past four years, the District’s total mileage has remained relatively stable in spite of a significant decrease in the use of contracted services. All expenses categories have been relatively stable, or decreased, during this time frame. Given the significant inflationary costs that have challenged transportation programs (fuel,

(19)

labor costs, benefits, capital), the District should be commended for their obvious cost controls and attention to the variable costs that typically are part of a transportation program review.

• In order to put the South Colonie Central School District transportation program into perspective with other transportation systems in the Region, a comparability survey was developed and emailed on April 2, 2013 to identified contacts in the following 15 districts:

 Albany City SD

 Bethlehem CSD

 Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake CSD

 Cohoes City SD  Guilderland CSD  Middleburgh CSD  Mohonasen CSD  Niskayuna CSD  North Colonie CSD  Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk CSD  Schenectady City SD  Scotia Glenville CSD  Shenendehowa CSD  Schalmont CSD  Voorheesville CSD

A copy of the survey instrument is included in the Appendix to this report.

The following districts chose to respond to the data request:

 Bethlehem CSD

 Burnt Hills — Ballston Lake CSD

 Guilderland CSD

 North Colonie CSD

 Scotia Glenville CSD

A review of the table will show various Key Performance Indicators (KPI) based on the information provided by the responding districts. Additionally, over the past two years TAS has performed regional transportation studies throughout Upstate New York which has allowed us to gather certain operating data for 83 Upstate districts of

(20)

varying sizes. We have provided this information for certain KPI categories.

• Financial information was based on the 2011-2012 operating year, and the 2012-2013 state aid year. The information was gathered from District financial aid reports, and the Transportation Aid Output Report (TRA) available from the State Education Department.

SOUTH COLONIE BETHLEHEM BURNT HILLS-BALLSTON LAKE GUILDERLAND NORTH COLONIE SCOTIA GLENVILLE Walker Policy K-6 .1 mile 6-8 .5 mile 9-12 1 miles All transported K-5 .2 miles 6-8 .5 miles 9-12 1 mile

No formal policy K-6 1 mile 7-12 2 miles # DOT VEHICLES 78 124 69 112 74 44 83.5 ROUTE VEHICLES 64 88 57 82 55 39 64.2 SPARE VEHICLES 14 34 12 30 19 5 19.0 "Other" VEHICLES 30 0 9 25 35 12 % SPARES 22% 39% 21% 37% 35% 13% 27.6% # MECHANICS 5.2 7 5 6 8 3 5.7 VEHICLE-TO-MECHANIC RATIO 17.9:1 17.7:1 14.8:1 20.8:1 11.5:1 16.7:1 16.6:1

AVG FLEET AGE (Yrs) 5.3 6.2 5 5.5 6.9 5.8

AVG FLEET MILEAGE 63,040 65,100 11,808/YR 58,356 12,000/YR 10,500/yr TYPICAL DRIVER

WORKDAY (Hrs) 7.01 6

4.5 in-Dist

5.5 OOD 6.5 6 4 5.9

AVG DRIVER RATE $21.47 $28.00 $21.75 $17.64 $23.00 $21.00

SUB RATE $17.54 $22.00 $17.98 $13.50-$15.00 $17.19

$13.61-$17.49 $18.68 ROUTING SOFTWARE Versatrans Versatrans Versatrans Versatrans Versatrans Transfinder

TIER STRUCTURE Triple Triple Double Triple Triple Double

DISTRICT; BOCES; CONTRACTED SERVICES

District &

Contracted District only District only District only District only District only

ENROLLMENT 5,105 4,833 3,448 4,926 5,916 2,896 4,521 STUDENT ELIGIBILITY 5,513 5,099 3,448 4,926 5,916 2,133 4,506 # TRANSPORTED 5,513 2,600 3,100 4,826 5,647 2,133 3,970 ANNUAL MILES 849,910 1,091,510 782,736 1,495,383 861,031 496,177 929,458 TOTAL COST $5,261,119 $8,559,665 $3,975,719 $6,895,549 $6,032,542 $2,577,648 $5,550,374 OPERATING COST $4,711,235 $7,455,741 $3,588,654 $6,038,902 $5,303,316 $2,276,708 $4,895,759 TOTAL COST/STUDENT $1,031 $1,771 $1,153 $1,400 $1,020 $890 $1,211 $1,171 OPERATING COST/ STUDENT $923 $1,543 $1,041 $1,226 $896 $786 $1,069 $1,005 TOTAL COST/ STUDENT TRANSPORTED $954 $3,292 $1,282 $1,429 $1,068 $1,208 $1,539 $1,479 OPERATING COST/ STUDENT TRANSPORTED $855 $2,868 $1,158 $1,251 $939 $1,067 $1,356 $1,239

TOTAL COST PER BUS $67,450 $69,030 $57,619 $61,567 $81,521 $58,583 $65,962 $47,712 TOTAL COST PER

ROUTE BUS $82,205 $97,269 $69,749 $84,092 $109,683 $66,094 $84,849 $62,937 OPERATING COST/BUS $60,400 $60,127 $52,009 $53,919 $71,666 $51,743 $58,311 $41,276 OPERATING COST/ ROUTE BUS $73,613 $84,724 $62,959 $73,645 $96,424 $58,377 $74,957 $54,243 OPERATING COST/ MILE $5.54 $6.83 $4.58 $4.04 $6.16 $4.59 $5.29

GROSS TRANS AID 55.9% 65.0% 66.4% 58.4% 49.9% 68.3% 60.7% 83.5%

Total Cost = Lines 177 + 179 on TRA Operating Cost = Line 177 on TRA

Mechanic ratio = DOT vehicles + 1/2 of non-DOT divided by # mechanics

RESPONDENTS TAS DATA

BASE FROM REGIONAL

STUDIES AVERAGE

(21)

• As can be seen on the chart, from the standpoint of cost per student, and operating cost per student, South Colonie CSD compares favorably to the regional averages. The cost per bus, both in total and on an operating level, is consistent with the region.

This information implies that the District does a good job of utilizing their vehicles from a student load standpoint, and efficiently transports students on the number of buses being operated.

We recommend that these Key Performance Indicators be developed by the Transportation Department on an annual basis with a detailed analysis provided for any fluctuations, either positive or negative. This will focus the Department on cost containment while providing the Administration with insights into the overall efficiency of the Department.

• The District reported revenue of $31,501 for the 2011-2012 school year which apparently was due to services provided for youth programs. Although we strongly encourage the entrepreneurial spirit in transportation, the District will need to be very sensitive to the mileage associated with these efforts as they may “trigger” a secondary aid deduction which can have a serious negative aid impact on the District.

Although this did not occur last year, the negative aid calculation did occur during the previous two school years.

This does not mean that the services should not be provided; however, it does mean that the District will need to be very sensitive to the pricing for the services in order to compensate for the potential aid loss.

(22)

FLEET

The District currently operates 78 student transportation vehicles. At the end of this section we have included a detailed fleet listing as of 3/2013. We have also included a Fleet Profile which shows the fleet by capacity and age, and a chart which demonstrates the number of vehicles by model year.

As shown on the Fleet Profile report, the District has twelve 66-passenger buses, and one 24-66-passenger wheelchair equipped bus, identified as spare buses. We have also listed one 5-passenger Tahoe that is assigned to the Director of Transportation, but which is a DOT vehicle and occasionally used to transport students. Spares are used as a replacement during maintenance downtimes, or supplemental vehicles should additional program demands occur.

Industry standards would typically have a spare ratio of approximately 15% to 20% of the route vehicles (10 to 13 vehicles). The ratio can vary depending on extra-curricular demands, and the age/mileage of the fleet (older/higher mileage fleets need more spare buses due to maintenance issues). The District has a spare ratio of 20%, consistent with industry standards.

• As shown on the Fleet Listing, the current fleet shows an average mileage of 63,040 with an average age of 5.3 years. Both of these averages are slightly lower than the Statewide averages we have gathered over the years. We have historically found that the “average” fleet shows an average mileage of approximately 70,000 miles with an average age of approximately 5.5 years.

As can be seen on the Fleet Profile at the end of this section, over the past 9 years the District has been relatively consistent in the fleet replacements. We fully support a consistent fleet replacement program. As the District determines which buses to replace, a number of typical factors should be taken into consideration when developing a fleet replacement program. These factors are:

 Vehicle age

 Mileage

 Utilization

 Future District needs

 Historical repair costs (both parts and labor)

 Inspector recommendations

FLEET

(23)

 Residual value

As we discuss in the Maintenance section of this report, the District is using fleet maintenance software. When used effectively, this software can document historical repair costs for each bus, thus providing valuable information for fleet replacement projections.

The maintenance software tracks parts and labor costs which is very important in order to develop an accurate understanding of what a bus is really costing the District to operate. Buses should not be replaced solely on age or mileage. As we have all experienced with cars, it is possible to get a “lemon”. Buses also have maintenance histories and this should be closely reviewed before decisions are made on what vehicles to replace.

Based on interviews, it appears that the District is very aggressive in “swapping out” parts on any buses that are being provided as trade-ins on newer buses. Parts which are relatively new, and valuable, will be replaced with older parts. The District should be commended for this sensitivity to cost efficiency.

• The District has installed Webasto pre-heaters on all buses, funded by a NYSERDA grant. This unit eliminates the need for plugging in the bus block heaters, thereby reducing utility costs.

(24)

TRANSPORTATION STUDY FLEET LISTING

03/01/13; Mileage as of 6/30/12

BUS # YEAR CAPACITY MAKE/MODEL MILEAGE USAGE AGE

OPERATING TIMES

1 S 2004 44A/66C IC/RE 119,858 Spare 9

2 S 2004 44A/66C IC/RE 96,408 Spare 9

3 S 2004 44A/66C IC/RE 119,248 Spare 9

4 S 2004 44A/66C IC/RE 111,026 Spare 9

5 S 2005 44A/66C IC/RE 79,945 Spare 8

6 S 2005 44A/66C IC/RE 82,022 Spare 8

7 S 2005 44A/66C IC/RE 99,684 Spare 8

8 2005 44A/66C IC/RE 87,906 Spare 8

9 2006 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 85,161 Route 7 8:00-8:44;9:00-915;3:00-3:21;3:25-3:38

10 2006 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 85,912 Route 7 7:52-8:18;9:08-9:25;2:49-3:29;3:40-3:52 11 2006 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 103,637 Route 7 7:55-8:49;10:30-11:07;2:25-2:36;2:55-3:31;4:05-4:22 12 2006 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 82,223 Route 7 10:30-11:00;11:50-12:11;11:55-12:11;3:05-3:26 14 2007 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 65,874 Route 6 8:15-8:33;9:05-9:42;2:00-2:19;3:02-3:25 15 2007 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 84,753 Route 6 8:11-8:37;8:38-8:542:13-2:28;3:02-3:23;4:05-4:31

16 2007 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 72,063 Route 6 7:45-7:56;8:30-9:21;3:10-3:49

17 2007 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 66,468 Route 6 7:10-7:34;7:35-7:56;8:45-9:02;2:13-2:23;2:25-2:45;3:00-3:16;3:25-3:38;3:50-4:00 18 2007 44A/66C BlueBird/RE 69,157 Route 6 7:15-7:39;7:45-7:58;8:15-8:28;9:10-9:25;2:13-2:43;3:02-3:17;3:26-3:44;3:50-4:13;5:30-5:51 19 2008 44A/65C BlueBird/Conv 62,333 Route 5 7:55-8:42;8:40-8:51;3:02-3:15;3:30-3:44;3:40-3:52

20 2008 44A/65C BlueBird/Conv 90,925 Route 5 7:17-7:36;7:35-7:49;8:45-9:04;9:10-9:20;10:30-10:43;2:13-2:32;2:25-2:39;3:00-3:18;3:27-3:39;3:50-4:15 21 2008 44A/65C BlueBird/Conv 66,312 Route 5 7:18-7:30;7:40-8:00;8:43-9:07;9:10-9:25;2:13-2:28;2:25-2:46;3:00-3:18;3:25-3:44;3:50-4:19;5:30-6:01 22 2008 44A/65C BlueBird/Conv 61,534 Route 5 7:05-7:23;7:40-8:01;8:30-8:55;2:13-2:26;2:25-2:39;3:02-3:23;3:40-3:52 23 2008 44A/65C BlueBird/Conv 55,257 Route 5 7:15-7:33;8:15-8:34;9:10-9:34;2:13-2:29;3:02-3:22;3:25-3:49;4:05-4:34 24 2009 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 53,057 Route 4 7:20-7:39;7:35-7:51;9:10-9:23;2:13-2:25;2:25-2:42;2:59-3:11;3:25-3:38;3:50-4:10 25 2009 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 38,633 Route 4 7:17-7:33;7:34-7:50;8:45-9:06;1:35-1:45;2:13-2:25;2:25-2:38;3:00-3:20;3:30-3:48 26 2009 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 50,255 Route 4 7:16-7:32;7:40-7:54;8:45-9:06;2:13-2:23;2:25-2:40;3:00-3:18;3:40-3:56 27 2009 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 50,142 Route 4 7:12-7:33;7:40-8:03;8:45-9:19;2:13-2:29;2:25-2:48;2:55-3:49 28 2009 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 53,926 Route 4 7:20-7:40;7:38-7:49;8:00-8:10;9:10-9:39;2:13-2:31;2:55-3:48;3:50-4:13 29 2010 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 43,807 Route 3 7:20-7:48;8:11-8:37;9:10-9:29;11:50-12:26;2:13-2:44;3:02-3:28;3:27-3:51;4:05-4:24 30 2010 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 30,933 Route 3 7:10-7:29;7:34-7:49;8:25-8:45;2:13-2:24;2:25-2:41;3:10-3:27;3:40-3:54 31 2010 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 43,991 Route 3 7:15-7:32;7:35-7:47;9:10-9:37;2:13-2:24;2:25-2:37;3:04-3:13;3:25-3:51;3:50-4:03;5:00-5:28 32 2010 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 44,566 Route 3 7:14-7:29;7:35-7:57;8:45-9:08;2:13-2:22;2:25-2:50;3:00-3:19;3:25-3:40;5:00-5:30 33 2010 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 42,655 Route 3 7:20-7:40;7:40-7:58;8:45-9:00;9:10-9:34;2:00-2:20;2:25-2:42;3:02-3:19;3:25-3:42

DISTRICT: Fleet Listing as of:

South Colonie Central Schools

33 2010 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 42,655 Route 3 7:20 7:40;7:40 7:58;8:45 9:00;9:10 9:34;2:00 2:20;2:25 2:42;3:02 3:19;3:25 3:42 34 2011 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 28,116 Route 2 7:14-7:32;7:35-7:52;8:15-8:35;9:10-9:27;2:13-2:24;2:25-2:44;3:02-3:18;3:25-3:42;3:50-4:02 35 2011 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 27,159 Route 2 7:14-7:32;7:55-8:24;9:10-9:24;2:13-2:24;2:25-2:36;3:00-3:15;3:25-3:42;3:50-3:58;5:00-5:32 36 2011 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 31,519 Route 2 7:14-7:33;8:15-8:40;8:45-9:01;10:45-10:55;11:00-11:10;2:13-2:28;2:25-2:42;3:00-3:16;3:25-3:40;3:50-4:01 37 2011 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 30,786 Route 2 7:15-7:48;7:45-7:52;8:15-8:36;9:10-9:34;2:13-2:40;3:02-3:24;3:25-3:51;4:05-4:19 38 2011 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 32,868 Route 2 7:20-7:50;8:07-8:19;9:10-9:27;2:13-2:44;3:02-3:22;3:25-3:46 39 2012 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 14,067 Route 1 7:20-7:38;7:35-7:50;8:23-8:53;2:13-2:24;2:25-2:40;3:10-3:25;3:40-3:52;5:00-5:38 40 2012 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 21,591 Route 1 7:06-7:43;7:55-8:52;9:10-9:28;2:13-2:45;2:45-4:53 41 2012 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 17,037 Route 1 7:05-7:35;8:12-8:30;9:02-9:18;2:13-2:34;3:02-3:21;3:25-3:50 42 2012 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 14,845 Route 1 7:12-7:25;7:45-8:05;8:4-8:57;2:13-2:27;2:25-2:45;3:00-3:13;3:25-3:49 43 2012 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 17,412 Route 1 7:20-7:42;8:15-8:40;9:10-9:33;2:13-2:30;3:02-3:27;3:25-3:46 44 2013 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 6,303 Route 0 7:25-7:43;7:45-8:05;8:45-9:11;2:13-2:29;3:00-3:19;3:40-3:53 45 2013 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 6,798 Route 0 7:15-7:47;8:10-8:30;9:10-9:31;2:13-2:40;3:00-3:16;3:25-3:51 46 2013 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 6,054 Route 0 7:20-7:45;8:15-8:37;9:10-9:23;2:13-2:31;3:00-4:27 47 2013 44A/66C Thomas/Conv 5,431 Route 0 7:20-7:51;7:40-7:57;8:10-8:25;9:10-9:30;2:13-2:29;3:02-3:16;3:25-3:37

75 S 2003 44A/66C Thomas/RE 97,013 Spare 10

80 2010 2W/C-12P Ford/Bluebird 27,106 Route 3 7:14-7:43;8:15-8:26;9:11-9:26;12:45-1:09;2:05-2:34;3:02-3:23;3:25-3:57 81 2013 2/WC-21P Thomas/Thomas 4,094 Route 0 7:10-7:42;7:45-7:50;8:45-9:10;9:10-9:28;11:00-11:04;11:30-11:34;2:05-2:27;2:45-3:12;3:25-4:02 85 2002 1W/C-15P Ford/Corbeil 151,552 Route 11 7:15-7:59;7:55-8:36;3:00-3:37;4:15-4:29

86 2005 2W/C-24P Intl/Bluebird 93,103 Spare 8 being used as sub buses currently

87 2006 2W/C-21P Thomas/Thomas 81,523 Route 7 7:30-8:07;8:00-8:26;9:10-9:42;2:25-3:00;3:02-3:31;3:25-3:52 88 2007 18/2 Ford/Corbeil 64,468 Route 6 8:05-8:16;8:05-8:35;8:45-9:14;1:45-2:16;2:20-2:31;3:00-3:53 89 2010 30C/20A/2WC Bluebird/Bluebird 47,240 Route 3 7:08-7:45;7:45-8:14;8:40-9:24;1:45-2:17;2:25-2:48;3:00-3:33 90 2002 7P Chevy/Suburban 165,164 Route 11 7:05-7:11;8:05-8:31;9:10-9:28;2:05-2:11;3:02-3:27

91 2004 48P Int'l/Conv 104,980 Route 9 7:55-8:51;3:00-3:23;3:25-3:46;5:00-5:16

(25)

TRANSPORTATION STUDY FLEET LISTING

03/01/13; Mileage as of 6/30/12 DISTRICT:

Fleet Listing as of:

South Colonie Central Schools

92 2004 48P Int'l/Conv 116,848 Route 9 7:55-8:24;9:10-9:41;3:10-4:11

93 2004 36P Int'l/Bluebird 81,287 Route 9 being used as sub buses currently

94 2006 36P Int'l/IC 82,289 Route 7 8:30-8:55;11:45-12:13;2:25-2:48;3:25-4:04

95 2006 36P Int'l/IC 77,773 Route 7 8:20-9:10;11:45-12:13;3:30-4:34;5:00-5:21

96 2005 22P Ford/Corbeil 83,942 Route 8 8:15-9:13;12:45-1:12;1:25-1:30;2:55-3:43

97 2006 20P Ford/Corbeil 78,224 Route 7 7:30-8:06;8:29-8:59;12:45-1:21;2:40-3:06;2:55-3:20

98 2007 20P Ford/Corbeil 82,744 Route 6 8:00-8:33;8:00-8:04;9:10-9:57;12:45-1:01

106 2003 5P Chevy/Tahoe 71,258 Spare 10 Assigned to Trans Supv

111 2005 7P Chrysler/Minivan 111,780 Route 8 7:45-8:06;2:55-3:15 112 2005 7P Chrysler/Minivan 118,270 Route 8 8:55-9:22 113 2005 7P Chrysler/Minivan 86,294 Route 8 9:00-9:21;11:45-11:59;2:30-2:52 114 2007 7P Dodge/Minivan 57,562 Route 6 8:00-8:28;8:10-8:13;11:00-11:09;2:40-2:59 115 2009 7P Dodge/Minivan 47,432 Route 4 8:10-8:27;2:45-3:03 116 2008 7P Chevy/Suburban 48,913 Route 5 8:15-9:30;11:45-12:04;1:45-2:10;2:45-3:24 117 2010 20P Ford/Bluebird 31,477 Route 3 7:15-7:37;8:40-9:32;11:45-12:05;1:50-2:19;2:40-3:46 118 2011 20P Ford/Bluebird 16,147 Route 2 7:45-8:15;9:00-9:33;12:45-1:03;2:25-3:01;3:30-3:51 119 2011 20P Ford/Bluebird 20,528 Route 2 7:55-8:28;8:45-9:00;11:45-12:11;2:50-3:45 120 2012 20P Ford/Bluebird 7,816 Route 1 7:30-8:03;11:45-12:07;1:35-1:39;3:00-3:26;3:45-4:25 121 2012 20P Ford/Bluebird 5,648 Route 1 7:25-7:42;8:30-8:49;10:30-10:36;10:45-10:50;12:45-1:14;2:50-3:17;3:25-3:51 63,040 5.3 78

VEH # YEAR CAPACITY MAKE/MODEL MILEAGE USE AGE

T051 107 2005 PU Ford/F350 40,588 Route 8

T091 108 2009 PU Ford/F350 5,213 Route 4

T991 1999 5 Ford/Crown Victorian 103,916 Route 14

T992 1999 5 Ford/Crown Victorian 101,611 Route 14

M671 1967 1 Kaiser Jeep Dump Truck 24,683 B&G 46

M891 1989 4 Chevy Suburban 193,625 B&G 24

M902 1990 3 Ford Box Truck 75,675 B&G 23

M941 1994 3 Chevy Utility Truck 66,041 B&G 19

M952 1995 3 Ford Dump (yellow) 11,667 B&G 18

NON-STUDENT VEHICLES

Average mileage: Average age: Number of vehicles:

p (y ) ,

M961 1996 3 Ford F350 Utility Truck 56,212 B&G 17

M971 1997 3 Ford F350 Utility Truck 108,899 B&G 16

M991 1999 3 Dodge Utility Truck 91,218 B&G 14

M014 2001 5 Ford Crown Victoria 111,250 B&G-Energy Ed 12

M031 2003 2 Dodge Ram Van 103,091 B&G 10

M051 2005 6 Chrysler MiniVan 144,876 B&G-Messenger 8

M061 2006 3 Ford Super Duty F350 95,000 B&G 7

M081 2008 3 Chevy F350 Super Duty 37,739 B&G 5

M082 2008 3 Ford F350 Truck 31,583 B&G 5

M083 2008 3 Ford F350 Truck 22,805 B&G 5

M091 2009 2 Chevy Cargo Van 63,029 B&G 4

M111 2011 3 Ford F350 PickUp 43,190 B&G 2

IT051 2005 6 Chrysler Van 34,251 IT Dept. 8

IT011 2001 6 Pontiac Van 110,093 IT Dept. 12

FS071 2007 7 Dodge Van 117,582 Food Service 6

FS100 2010 2 Ford E350 27,510 Food Service 3 Leased

(26)

SOUTH COLONIE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FLEET PROFILE AS OF 3/1/2013 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL Spares 66 pass 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 45 12 65 pass 5 5 0 48 pass 2 2 0 36 pass 1 2 3 0 22 pass 1 1 0 20 pass 1 1 1 2 2 7 0 7 pass 1 3 1 1 1 7 0 5 pass 1 1 1 30 + 2 w/c 1 1 0 24 + 2 w/c 1 1 1 21 + 2 w/c 1 1 2 0 18 + 2 w/c 1 1 0 15 + 1 w/c 1 1 0 12 + 2 w/c 1 1 0 Total 2 5 7 9 8 8 6 6 8 7 7 5 78 14.0 % 3% 6% 9% 12% 10% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 9% 6% % 3% 6% 9% 12% 10% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 9% 6% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL ROUTE 2 0 3 4 8 8 6 6 8 7 7 5 64 SPARE 0 5 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 TOTAL 2 5 7 9 8 8 6 6 8 7 7 5 78 8 9 10

FLEET PROFILE - REPLACEMENT

3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(27)

LABOR

A critical element to any transportation program is labor. Quality drivers, aides, mechanics, and administrators are key team members in a successful transportation program.

It is important to note our perspective toward labor. It is critical that a District employ highly qualified drivers in sufficient numbers to meet the on-going needs of the District. At the same time, it is important that any agreements or procedures provide the District with the flexibility needed to adjust programs to change service levels with an accompanying change in labor costs. Most significantly, the labor agreement should support and facilitate the provision of quality services to the students and the education community.

We have reviewed the labor agreement between the South Colonie Central School District and CSEA, Local 1000, that expires on June 30, 2013. This agreement covers the drivers (and trainer), mechanics and keyboard specialist. We also reviewed the Supervisors & Technicians labor agreement that covers the Director, Dispatcher and Head Mechanic (expires 6/30/15), and the Teamsters labor agreement that covers the monitors (expires 6/30/14).

A majority of the comments in this section apply to the drivers (CSEA) agreement; however, we have provided some comments at the end of this section relative to the Teamsters agreement.

Relative to the labor agreement with the Drivers, following are our perspectives from a transportation viewpoint on the existing agreement. We understand the critical and important nature of negotiations, and the difficulty to all parties in making significant changes to historical practices; yet we strongly believe that an agreement needs to be consistent with the goal of quality transportation services while understanding that the District has limited financial resources.

It should be noted that many decisions relative to benefits for transportation employees… especially given the typical part-time nature of their jobs… were historically influenced by transportation aid. When a district is receiving 55.9% transportation aid on transportation expenditures, benefits may have been provided as the full cost was not experienced by the District. Unfortunately, not all employee benefits are really aidable, and we believe that there is a strong likelihood that transportation aid rates may decrease in the very near future. Therefore, we believe that it is very important for districts to take a close look at the

LABOR AGREEMENT

(28)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 8 - Page 2 cost and effectiveness of benefits and procedures for part-time transportation employees.

Our comments only relate to transportation issues, and do not reflect any review for any of the other employee groups covered in this agreement. Given that the District was entering into labor negotiations for the CSEA contract, we provided the District with our specific recommendations and perspectives in a confidential memo. Although a number of issues were addressed in our recommendations, there are a few general issues and perspectives that we believe are important to identify in this report.

• Paid time off – in various sections of the agreement the following paid time off benefits are detailed:

 Holidays – 10

 Sick days – 10, plus additional 30 days after 3 years. Additional 20 after 10 years

 Personal days – 4 days

 Bereavement – 3

 Serious family illness – 5 days

 Longevity pay

 Snow days

Bus driving is normally a part-time job. It is a relatively unique function in that an absent employee must be replaced by a sub. This not only creates the incremental cost for the substitute employee, but it impacts the quality of the service, given that the best transportation service has the same drivers on the same buses, every day. In this way, the drivers know the students; the students know what to expect from the drivers; and the drivers know what looks “right or wrong” along a route or at a stop.

As shown above, a driver could potentially have 19+ paid days off in a school year (sick, personal family illness) in situations where a substitute driver would be necessary. That is over 10% of the annual school calendar! A sub would be required for all sick, personal or leave days. The use of sub drivers inflates labor costs while impacting the quality of the services. We believe that absenteeism and paid days off should be addressed in future labor agreements.

(29)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 8 - Page 3 • Sub drivers - It appears by the definition of covered employees in the labor agreement that substitutes would be included in the labor agreement. Subs are becoming more difficult to find, and we believe the District needs to have the right to pay subs whatever is necessary in order to have a sufficient number - especially given the number of paid days off that you provide the regular drivers. Keep in mind that subs typically do not qualify for any benefits so their effective compensation is much lower than a regular driver. Also, it is very unusual for subs to be part of the bargaining unit.

This is a classic issue of supply and demand. There is a decreasing supply of sub drivers, but an increasing demand. In order to keep the supply and demand in balance, the District needs the flexibility to adjust the price.

• At the time of the writing of this report, the District has 40 drivers who are considered “full time”. These drivers are paid for eight hours per day, regardless of the length of time that they actually drive. We believe that driving should be considered a part-time job with drivers being very well paid for the time that they actually work.

Based on comments during our interviews, there are many drivers who consider this a full-time job even though this is not typical in the industry. This perspective certainly appears to be based on a history within the South Colonie Central School District. This attitude toward driving being a full-time job certainly can be demonstrated with the guaranteed hours and full-time benefits detailed in the labor agreement. A number of drivers who are defined as “part-time” are guaranteed 5 to 6 hours per day.

In order to evaluate the impact of the guaranteed time in the District, a detailed review of actual route times was conducted using the VersaTrans routing software. In order to be realistic in our evaluation, time to travel to and from a route (known as “deadhead” time), and time for the pre and post trips for a route, were added to the route times. This was then compared to the time that the drivers were actually paid.

It is important to note that the analysis was performed by TAS utilizing the VersaTrans routing data. The resulting report was then provided to the District for their review to ensure the accuracy of the report. Numerous changes to the run times were made by the Transportation Department, due to modifications in start or end times, or assignments for mid-day runs. Additionally, in a few cases the deadhead times were modified in situations where the 30 minutes allocation was far too

(30)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 8 - Page 4 generous. The driving time analysis provided at the end of this section is based on the modified data as provided by the District.

As the report shows, the “average” driver is paid for 6.8 hours (6 hours and 48 minutes) per day while the “average” driver actually drives for 5.5 hours (5 hours and 29 minutes) per day. As stated, the driving time includes what we believe to be a somewhat generous 30 minute allocation of deadhead time to each tier. For a driver who drives in the morning, mid-day and afternoon, this amounts to 1.5 hours per day of calculated deadhead time. (As mentioned, in a very few instances the deadhead for short mid-day runs was reduced.)

There are some runs where the deadhead time, coupled with the pre/post trip times, greatly exceeds the actual runs times. Unless the Department can be very specific, by run, on deadhead times, this type of global allocation of deadhead times results in an inflation of the average run times.

• At the time of this report, the District has five unassigned sub drivers who are paid for 8 hours per day and who report to work to fill in for absent drivers. Given that there are 64 route buses, this means that the District expects an absentee rate of almost 8% per day.

We believe that the number of paid days off needs to be addressed, and that absenteeism be a constant focus for Department management personnel. Additionally, we believe that the number of unassigned sub drivers should be reduced, and the District should transition into a program of using call-in subs.

Call-in subs are typically paid an exceptionally high hourly rate, and they are paid for the time that they work. The District will need the flexibility to develop a call-in rate that is market driven and ensures that the subs will be responsive to driving requests. The Department will need to establish the proper level of office support in the early morning to facilitate the contacting of subs while normal phone coverage is provided. This is addressed in the Management section of this report.

• Given the number of available drivers, there should not be occasions when the payment of overtime is required. The Department Management should have the absolute right to assign another driver to a trip if the trip assignment will result in a driver operating in an overtime environment. Seniority or bidding rights on runs should not preclude the District’s right to control unnecessary costs.

For the 2011-2012 school year, the Department incurred $47,307 in overtime wages for drivers.

(31)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 8 - Page 5 In a similar fashion, management should have a right to assign a driver to a run if a specific driver is not available. This will frequently occur during the afternoon runs when a driver assigned to a trip cannot be available for the first part of a trip. The District should not be duplicating mileage and incurring unnecessary expenses to facilitate a driver getting access to the second part of a trip.

• The Athletic Department requires shuttles which are short in duration

and which should not be assigned as a trip with a 2 hour payment guarantee.

• The District must attempt to control all non-mandated costs, including the provision of athletic runs. To this end, the District should have the right to share athletic runs with other districts without any issues of exclusivity of service. Runs that can be shared will reduce labor costs while decreasing the trip miles that result in a higher “other purpose” aid deduction as detailed in the Financial section of this report.

• Based on interviews it appears that there has been a practice in the

District of assigning a bus to a specific driver as opposed to assigning buses to runs as determined by management to be in the best interest of the District. A department needs to assign buses based on specific features (undercarriage storage for trips), or rotate buses to equalize mileages. The practice of bus assignment should be terminated.

• The bus monitors are covered under the Teamsters labor agreement.

However, the bus monitors are not differentiated within the agreement, or for seniority rights, from other monitors in the District even though the job training and requirements may differ. This can result in a bus monitor position being eliminated due to seniority even though the other employee is not properly trained to perform the bus-related duties. This should be addressed in the future agreement.

• Instead of providing employees the excessive levels of paid time off, we recommend that monies saved from the time off payments be used to fund an attendance incentive program.

We fully support an attendance program to reward and encourage “non-absenteeism”. From our experience the most successful programs are ones where the eligibility and payment period are short and obtainable. Therefore, we recommend that you consider two month periods – if an employee is not absent for any reason for the two months, they would receive a “real” incentive payment. If an employee happened to miss a day or two during a period, they would only lose their qualification for that one period, and not the entire semester.

ATTENDANCE INCENTIVE

(32)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 8 - Page 6 We believe attendance should be based on perfect attendance (excepting only jury duty and bereavement which are not in the control of the employee). Paid personal days should not be acceptable in an attendance incentive program as this absence requires the District to employ a sub driver for the day.

It’s not uncommon for people to believe that we should not have to pay people to come to work. Although we fully understand this belief, the reality of transportation is that people are driven by wages and that decisions can sometimes be made to work… or not work… based on a personal motivation. If an attendance incentive reduces the need to incur the supplemental cost of a sub driver, and keeps the regular driver on the same route, the District will reduce costs and improve quality.

As the District evaluates the attendance incentive concept, we recommend that consideration be given to reducing the paid days off to fund the attendance incentive program.

• As mentioned in the Financial section of this report, the District is

providing family health benefits which are not eligible to transportation aid reimbursement. Under the current labor agreement, the District will contribute 90% of the cost of health coverage for the employee, and 80% for a two-person or family plan. The District also provides a $30 per month payment toward dental coverage.

Although bus driving is a demanding and critically important job, it is a part-time job. We do not believe that the District can justify continuing to allocate these monies by providing benefits at the current levels. Additionally, we believe that there is a basic inequity in providing part-time employees with comparable benefits to full-part-time employees. We believe that equitability dictates that benefits should be calculated on a pro-rated basis based on hours actually worked.

If actual work hours were the basis, it would create an incentive for employees to take extra trips and extra work, and they would be motivated not to take time off. This would actually reduce the District’s labor costs as subs would not be required.

• At the end of this section we have included an Effective Hourly Rate

Worksheet. As this worksheet demonstrates, the average driver (paid

$21.51 per hour for 6.8 hours per day) receives health and dental insurance, retirement, and at least 30 paid non-work days. The impact of these benefits raises the effective hourly rate from $21.51 to $41.21 per hour! EFFECTIVE HOURLY RATE HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE

(33)

Transportation Efficiency Study forSouth Colonie Central Schools by TAS Section 8 - Page 7 It is important to note that in the above calculation, we have not factored in the impact of life time health insurance, or the cost of the life insurance policy. Although the life insurance policy cost is extremely low, the actuarial cost for life time health insurance can be significant… and is not an aidable transportation expense.

To put this in perspective, if the District could pay a driver for the time that they actually worked on an hourly basis, without the non-statutory benefits, the District could advertise a $25.00+ part-time job and save a considerable amount of money.

We believe the District should consider evaluating transportation-sensitive options in future labor agreements that would incorporate higher hourly rates, lower paid time-off benefits, and significant changes to the provision of family benefits. Given that the family portion of benefits is not aidable, it would be in the District’s interest to significantly reduce this contribution and increase the direct wage payments to the employee.

This would certainly be a difficult process to achieve given the need to negotiate this type of change. However, a two-tier wage and benefit system that would allow current employees to modify their wages and benefits, while establishing a new program for new employees, may be achievable.

This type of change would also allow the District to increase the hourly rate for new employees, thereby potentially benefitting the District as they compete for new drivers in the competitive marketplace. Additionally, a reduction in the paid time off will decrease the need for substitute drivers, and the duplicate cost of paying both the regular driver and the sub driver.

(34)

Prepared byTAS

SOUTH COLONIE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

EFFECTIVE HOURLY RATE WORKSHEET – 12/13

Employee: “Bus Driver” - 64 drivers. “Average” driver is paid for 6.8 hours per

day. Average hourly rate is $21.51. Average annual salary based on 183 day

school year.

Average Wage for Home-to-School (183 days) $26,767.04

Annual Value of Fringe Benefits(1) + $10,322.02

Annual Value of Paid Time Off(2) + $4,388.10

Annual Compensation = $41,477.16

Annual # of driving hours (5.5/day for 183 days)* ÷ 1,006.5 hours

Effective Hourly Ratefor Driver = $41.21

* Average driver, based on VersaTrans times as adjusted, drives for 5.5 hours per day which includes at least 30 minutes per day for pre/post trip checks.

(1)

FRINGE BENEFITS:



Health Insurance - $ 5,112.20 –($327,180.72 total averaged over 64 drivers)



Dental Insurance - $ 225 – ($14,400 total averaged over 64 drivers)



Retirement - $ 4,984.82 – (average based on 16% of annual wage plus paid time off)



Life Insurance – policy cost not considered



Legacy health insurance – actuarial cost not available



TOTAL ANNUAL FRINGE COST - $ 10,322.02(1)

(2)

PAID TIME-OFF(bereavement time not considered):



Personal - # 4



Sick Days - # 10(increases significantly after 10 years)



Holidays - # 10



Snow Days - # 3 (estimated annual usage)



Family illness - # 3 (up to five days allowed)

TOTAL # OF DAYS - # 30

CALCULATION OF PAID TIME OFF COST:

Total # of days from above list # 30

Daily Average Rate x $ 146.27

(35)

Driving and Paid Time Analysis 2013

Bus Number Start Time End Time Elapsed Time Deadhead Pre/Post Total Daily Total Paid Time Difference Notes

9 7:16 8:59 1:43 0:30 0:15 2:28 9 3:05 3:37 0:32 0:30 0:15 1:17 9 Total 3:45 3:45 6:00 2:15 10 7:25 9:11 1:46 0:30 0:15 2:31 10 2:49 3:51 1:02 0:30 0:15 1:47 10 Total 4:18 4:18 5:00 0:42 11 6:59 7:51 0:52 0:30 0:15 1:37 11 10:30 11:04 0:34 0:30 0:15 1:19 11 2:27 4:21 1:54 0:30 0:15 2:39 11 Total 5:35 5:35 6:00 0:25 12 10:30 12:23 1:53 0:30 0:15 2:38 12 3:05 3:25 0:20 0:30 0:15 1:05 12 Total 3:43 3:43 8:00 4:17 14 7:56 9:11 1:15 0:30 0:15 2:00 14 2:00 3:45 1:45 0:30 0:15 2:30 14 Total 4:30 4:30 5:00 0:30 15 7:46 8:45 0:59 0:30 0:15 1:44 15 11:47 11:58 0:11 0:30 0:15 0:56 15 2:10 4:29 2:19 0:30 0:15 3:04 15 Total 5:44 5:44 6:00 0:16 16 7:32 8:32 1:00 0:30 0:15 1:45 16 3:10 3:48 0:38 0:30 0:15 1:23 16 Total 3:08 3:08 5:30 2:22 17 6:29 8:45 2:16 0:30 0:15 3:01 17 11:46 3:59 PM 4:13 0:30 0:15 4:58 17 Total 7:59 7:59 8:00 0:01 18 6:41 9:11 2:30 0:30 0:15 3:15 18 2:10 6:00 3:50 0:20 0:15 4:25 18 Total 7:40 7:40 8:00 0:20 19 7:02 8:45 1:43 0:30 0:15 2:28 19 3:03 3:51 0:48 0:30 0:15 1:33 19 Total 4:01 4:01 5:00 0:59 20 6:54 9:11 2:17 0:30 0:15 3:02 20 10:30 10:50 0:20 0:30 0:15 1:05 20 2:10 4:14 2:04 0:30 0:15 2:49 20 Total 6:56 6:56 8:00 1:04 21 6:55 9:11 2:16 0:30 0:15 3:01 21 2:10 4:18 2:08 0:30 0:15 2:53 21 5:33 6:30 0:57 0:30 0:15 1:42 21 Total 7:36 7:36 8:00 0:24 22 6:40 8:30 1:50 0:30 0:15 2:35 22 11:46 12:04 0:18 0:30 0:15 1:03 22 2:10 4:05 1:55 0:30 0:15 2:40 22 Total 6:18 6:18 8:00 1:42 23 6:54 9:11 2:17 0:30 0:15 3:02 23 11:50 12:06 0:16 0:30 0:15 1:01 23 2:10 4:43 2:33 0:30 0:15 3:18 23 Total 7:21 7:21 8:00 0:39 24 6:40 9:11 2:31 0:30 0:15 3:16 24 12:11 12:34 0:23 0:30 0:15 1:08 24 2:17 4:09 1:52 0:30 0:15 2:37 24 Total 7:01 7:01 8