Transportation
Background
Organization Chart
The chart below provides an overview of the organizational structure and staffing levels for the Parma City School District’s (PCSD) transportation department.
Transportation Department
Organization Function
The primary responsibility of the transportation department is to provide a safe, efficient and economical method of getting students to and from school scheduled in a way that the best educational interests of the students can be served. The district provides transportation for students who attend private schools based on the same criteria as their own students. The district’s transportation department operates its own fleet of school buses and also assists with transportation for high school students using the Regional Transit Authority (RTA).
Summary of Operations
In FY 1997-98, the average daily membership for PCSD, as reported by the Ohio Department of Education, was 13,116. District vehicles for the regular transportation program traveled 600,840 miles carrying an estimated 4,229 public and 1,820 non-public students daily. RTA transported an additional164 public and 115 public students daily. Also, there were 8 public and 571 non-public students whose parents received payment “in lieu of transportation.” In total, transportation services were provided for 6,907 regular students.
The special education program transported approximately 382 students daily through different transportation means. District vehicles, buses and station wagons, traveling over 267,300 miles, carried 284, or 75 percent, of the special education students. Other special needs students were transported as follows: contracted vehicle other than yellow bus - 70, taxi - 27 and parent/guardian contract - 1.
Overall, PCSD’s vehicles traveled over 866,140 miles transporting more than 6,333 students on 136 routes. In addition, RTA transported 279 students. Combining all methods of transportation, the district provided for the transportation of 7,289 public and non-public students at a cost of $3,490,533. Approximately 30 percent, or $1,043,468, of the transportation expenditures were funded by the state.
Staffing
The following table displays the staffing levels for the transportation department.
Table 5-1: Staffing Level
Position Number of Employees Full Time Equivalents Transportation Supervisor
Transportation Assistant Supervisor Bus Drivers - 5.5 hours
Bus Drivers - 4.5 hours Spare Drivers - 4.5 hours Bus Monitors - 5.5 hours Lead Mechanic Mechanics Mechanic Helpers Secretary Clerk 1 1 42 26 6 14 1 6 3 1 1 1.0 1.0 28.9 14.6 3.4 9.6 1.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 Total 102 70.5
Source: PCSD transportation department
Financial Data
The following table shows the actual transportation expenditures for FY’s 1996-97 and 1997-98 and the budgeted expenditures for FY 1998-99. The transportation budget shown below includes the cost of field trips and repairs to other vehicles which are not related to home-to-school transportation. Therefore these costs have been excluded in the operational analysis performed throughout this section.
Table 5-2: Financial Table
Component Actual FY 1996-97 Expenditures Actual FY 1997-98 Expenditures Budgeted FY 1998-99 Expenditures Salaries Benefits Purchased Services Materials & Supplies Miscellaneous $2,172,786 $833,652 $318,228 $297,794 $40,486 $2,166,633 $775,037 $397,585 $272,794 $42,664 $1,960,839 $803,401 $197,860 $182,500 $45,500 Subtotal $3,662,946 $3,654,713 $3,190,100 Capital $583,846 $419,499 $205,000 Total $4,246,792 $4,074,212 $3,395,100
Source: FY 1996-97, FY 1997-98 4502 Reports and the amended temporary appropriation,
November 16, 1998.
The transportation expenditures, not considering capital, stayed fairly constant when comparing FY 1996-97 to FY 1997-98. The business manager explained the 7 percent decrease in FY 1997-98 benefits was due to a reduction in workers compensation costs and less severance pay. The 25 percent increase in purchased services was for an increase in outside repairs and contracted services. Capital expenditures were for school bus purchases.
The district has not adopted a permanent appropriation measure for FY 1998-99. Rather, PCSD is operating under a temporary appropriation measure. The treasurer, in order to adopt a budget within the certificate
of estimated resources, modified various budget requests from administrators at lesser amounts than were requested. The FY 1998-99 transportation budget, not including capital, is approximately 13 percent less than the previous two fiscal years actual expenditures and does not appear to be reasonable. Further discussions on the budget is included in F5.12
The comparative analysis throughout this section includes information on the school districts from the following table which details some of the basic operating statistics for each of the peer districts.
Table 5-3: Operational Statistics and Ratios
FY 1997-98 Parma Canton Dayton South-Western
Operational Statistics: Eligible Students - Regular students - Special needs - Total Expenditures - Regular students - Special needs - Total State Reimbursements - Regular students - Special needs
- Bus purchase allowance - Other bus reimbursement2
- Total Miles Driven - Regular students - Special needs - Total Operational Ratios:
Regular Students: Yellow Bus - Cost per Mile
- Cost per Bus - Cost per Student - Students per Bus - Cost per Student all methods Special Needs Students:
- Cost per Student all methods School Sites - Public - Non-public Active Buses Spare Buses
Square Miles in District
6,907 382 7,289 $2,128,971 $1,361,562 $3,490,533 $657,278 $386,190 $76,988 $0 $1,120,456 600,8401 267,3001 868,140 $3.61 $34,758 $338 103 $308 $3,564 22 25 60 25 30 5,520 485 6,005 $1,137,607 $585,789 $1,723,396 $489,612 $152,678 $161,720 $0 $804,010 322,380 165,428 487,808 $3.49 $24,429 $206 118 $206 $1,208 24 10 56 5 19.5 21,263 1,045 22,308 $10,914,797 $2,237,015 $13,151,812 $2,590,332 $635,970 $475,125 $0 $3,701,427 2,568,780 647,640 3,216,420 $3.70 $54,059 $642 84 $513 $2,141 52 16 208 18 36 13,161 171 13,332 $3,257,465 $551,261 $3,808,726 $1,195,798 $184,750 $279,708 $292,691 $1,952,947 1,506,960 327,600 1,834,560 $2.13 $32,464 $249 130 $248 $3,224 28 30 107 29 127 Source: FY 1997-98 T-1, T-2 and T-11 Forms; FY 1997-98 4502 Report
1 PCSD miles includes mileage for board owned station wagons used in student transportation. 2 Other bus reimbursements are for buses identified as non-public or handicap. (F5.11)
The following table provides the number of staff and FTE by position for each of the peer districts.
Table 5-4: Peer District Staffing Level Comparison
Staffing Parma Canton Dayton South-Western
No. FTE No. FTE No. FTE No. FTE
Managers Supervisors Trainers Dispatchers/Routers/Radio Bus Drivers Bus Attendants Mechanics/Servicemen Clerical 0 3 0 0 74 14 9 2 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 9.6 9.0 2.0 0 1 0 1 56 17 3 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 34.8 11.0 3.0 1.0 3 2 4 7 218 33 21 6 2.2 2.0 4.0 7.0 209.8 31.8 21.0 6.0 0 2 0 2 109 14 8 3 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 90.3 10.6 8.0 2.8 Total 102 70.5 79 51.8 294 283.8 138 115.7
Source: School districts’ transportation departments.
Note: PCSD transportation department’s transportation supervisor and assistant transportation supervisor do the
Customer Satisfaction Survey
A Customer Satisfaction Survey was distributed to a sample of 290 employees. The purpose of the survey was to obtain employees’ feedback and perceptions of transportation related issues. Responses were received from145 employees for a response rate of 50 percent. Of the 145 responses, 82 were completed while 63 were returned as not applicable.
The survey solicited responses to 12 attributes concerning transportation functions, procedures and policies. The survey allowed responses with the following values: 5 - strongly agree, 4 - agree, 3 - neutral, 2 - disagree and 1 - strongly disagree. The respondents’ rating of the 12 attributes ranged from 2.02 to 4.00. The overall weighted average score was 2.89 which is below neutral and indicates a level of dissatisfaction in the district’s transportation services. The average service time of the respondents was 14 years.
The transportation survey was distributed to the district employees a few weeks into the beginning of the school year. The lowest level of satisfaction, in terms of weighted average, was for whether the transportation department effectively addressed complaints. The highest level of satisfaction was for completion of transportation routes with regard to the safety of children. Table 5-5 illustrates the total compilation of the surveys received.
Table 5-6 follows the survey data table and categorizes some of the written responses to the question “How can the transportation department provide services to the district in a more effective and efficient manner?”on the Customer Satisfaction Survey of PCSD’s transportation department. The responses listed are only a sample of the total received, but are representative of most of the issues communicated through the survey.
Table 5-5: Customer Satisfaction Survey
Transportation Department Attributes
Admin. &
Teachers Transp. Other
Weighted Average
1) Effective communication of transportation policies and routes exists.
2) Effective coordination of routes and special trips exists between departments.
3) The department provides timely transportation of students to and from schools.
4) The department provides timely transportation to and from special events.
5) Transportation routes cover the district in the most efficient manner possible.
6) The transportation department adjusts transportation schedules for student changes in a timely manner.
7) The transportation department is effective in addressing complaints.
8) Transportation routes are completed with regard to the safety of children.
9) Children arrive at school in a mindset conducive to learning. Yellow Bus
Other
10) The attitude, politeness and work ethic of the transportation department staff is above average.
11) Overall, the quality of all transportation services provided by the department is above average.
12) I am satisfied with the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the district’s current transportation policies and procedures.
2.79 2.35 3.19 3.30 2.28 2.12 2.02 4.00 2.93 2.16 3.12 3.11 3.18 3.50 4.00 3.75 4.00 2.00 2.25 2.75 2.00 3.50 2.75 3.50 3.75 3.25 3.14 2.33 3.57 3.29 2.52 2.86 2.71 3.62 2.67 2.43 3.19 3.81 3.57 2.91 2.43 3.32 3.33 2.33 2.32 2.23 3.80 2.89 2.26 3.16 3.32 3.28 Overall Average 2.81 3.15 3.05 2.89
Number of responses received 57 4 21 82
The following table categorizes some of the written responses from the Customer Satisfaction Survey of the PCSD’s transportation department.
Table 5-6: Transportation User Survey - Selected Responses
How can the transportation department provide services to the district in a more effective and efficient manner?
Training
*More qualified drivers.
*All special education drivers should be required to help load/unload special education students. *All special education drivers must be made aware that they may have to wait longer for special education students.
*Be more particular who drives your buses, for the children’s sake, especially special needs students. *Train drivers on student conduct and discipline.
*Courtesy and attitude of drivers. *Better communication.
Scheduling
*Bus route letters sent to parents in August should be sent earlier, if possible. *Buses should be more on time.
*Students should be placed on the bus route closest to their home so that they do not ride too long. *It seems buses are late after they do a parochial run.
*Some drivers take the long way on their runs. *Some pre-school students are on the bus too long.
*It is important that bus drivers keep the same routes each year to maintain continuity for the children. *Opening day needs much work. Bus drivers should get off the bus and hold up a sign with the bus number.
*Timely and accurate bus list.
*Better scheduling and directions for away field trips. *Have shuttle schedules available in unit offices.
Disciplinary
*Security cameras should be on every bus.
*Buses should not return to school with disciplinary problems. Use write-up report.
*Adult “Safety Observers” should be hired to ride buses the first two weeks of school, before holidays and the last two weeks of school.
Policy
*Bus more children.
*Reinstate high school busing.
Other
*Use seat belts on buses.
*Communication is the key between the school and the transportation supervisor. *Field trips during the day should have a later return time.
*Some buses should be available for longer field trips and not tied into the regular schedule. *Field trip billing is inconsistent.
The following is a list of performance measures that were used to conduct the analysis of the transportation department:
• Assessment of district’s transportation policies in relationship to state minimum standards • Adequacy of reporting operational information to secure state transportation aid
• Cost effectiveness of pupil transportation services by type of transportation (regular and special needs transportation):
- Cost per mile, cost per bus and cost per student - Bus capacity utilization
- Comparative bus driver wage rates and benefits
- Effectiveness of coordination between the special education department and the transportation department to assure efficient transportation of special needs students • Effectiveness and efficiency of transportation routing
- Manual or computerized routing
- Use of municipal transportation services
- Assessment of district’s bell schedules to support tiered routing • Assessment of department staff and personnel matters
- Review of the collective bargaining agreement - Analysis of absenteeism and leave usage • Assessment of bus fleet and its maintenance
- Review of the age of the bus fleet and required capital investment - Review of the district’s practices regarding school bus replacement - Review of the adequacy of fleet maintenance system
- Review of parts inventory control and reordering - Review of the preventive maintenance program • Assessment of extracurricular transportation services
- Appropriateness of budget and budget process for transporting students for extracurricular activities
• Assessment of privatization
Findings/Commendations/Recommendations
Policy
F5.1 In November 1997, the PCSD’s Board of Education adopted policies for providing transportation to resident students, kindergarten through grade eight, who live more than 1.5 miles from the school in their designated attendance area and for those with physical or mental disabilities that make walking impossible or unsafe. Exceptions to the established areas may be made by the board for the following reasons:
• transportation will be provided where walking conditions to the student’s school are extremely hazardous and/or walking conditions are inadequate at the present time due to construction or temporary safety hazard
• transportation will be provided at noon for afternoon kindergarten children who are going to school and for morning kindergarten children who are returning home Transportation to alternate sites, such as baby-sitters or daycare centers, can be provided if the alternate site is within the attendance zone, in an eligible transportation zone for school attendance and consistent five days per week.
Board policy also requires that the district operate its own fleet of school buses and provides for the transportation of students attending non-public schools in keeping with the requirements of state law and various determinations made by the state Board of Education. State law generally requires a school district to provide transportation for resident elementary students, grades K - 8, who live more than 2 miles from their assigned school or who have physical or mental disabilities that make walking impractical or unsafe. The transportation of high school students or intra district open enrollment is optional.
Other key provisions of the transportation policy include: • school bus safety program
• student conduct on school buses • drug testing for drivers
The district also has two additional transportation policies that cover the non-routine use of school buses and transportation by private vehicle.
F5.2 The following table shows how the transportation policy of PCSD compares with those of its peer districts.
Table 5-7: Transportation Policies
Transportation Policy Parma Canton Dayton South-Western
K-4 5-6 7-8 9-12
Intra district open enrollment
1.5 miles 1.5 miles 1.5 miles no no 1.0 mile 1.0 mile 1.0 mile 1.0 mile no 1.5 miles 1.5 miles 2.0 miles 2.0 miles yes 1.0 mile 2.0 miles 2.0 miles 2.0 miles no1
Source: District’s policies
Note: PCSD sells RTA five-ride passes for the price of four-rides to high school students.
1South-Western Public Schools limits the one mile distance to grades K-4 and applies the two mile limit to
grades 5-8.
F5.3 The district transports students living less than 1.5 miles from the school they attend when safety conditions warrant. In FY 1997-98, the district transported 267 students under this exception.
R5.1 PCSD should establish a formal procedure, with appropriate administrative approval, to determine if safety hazards are present and, therefore, allow the transportation of a student living less than one mile from their school. Current hazards include crossing a four-lane road, major streets without sidewalks, speed limits and railroad crossings. The district is busing approximately four percent of the total number of regular students transported due to safety hazards.
R5.2 The transportation department should utilize the capabilities of their VersaTrans7 computerized routing software (F5.56) to run various scenarios to determine the impact of the current transportation policy on the district’s transportation costs. A combination of scenarios should be run ranging from moving the district to state minimum standards or to somewhere in-between state minimum standards and the current policy.
Financial Implication: One scenario that was reviewed during the performance audit was
to determine how many students would be affected if the transportation policy for students were moved from 1.5 miles to two miles for transportation eligibility. Approximately 1,447 elementary and middle school students (7th and 8th grades) would lose their transportation eligibility.
Based on the transportation department’s current bus capacity utilization of 103 students per bus, approximately 14 buses could be reduced. The reduction of these buses represents an estimated cost savings of $485,000, net of state reimbursements, plus a cost avoidance of $700,000 in not having to replace these buses. However, any transportation reductions
should be examined thoroughly so that the district is not compromising the educational needs or the safety of the students.
F5.4 The district utilizes various starting and ending times for their schools; however, the bell schedule for high schools is not a factor since the district does not provide district bus transportation for those students. The bell schedules for middle and elementary schools involves staggered starting and ending times and therefore allows some of the district buses to run up to four runs per route.
Table 5-8: Bell Schedules
Start Time Dismissal Time
High Schools 7:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M.
Middle Schools 8:00 A.M. 2:50 P.M.
Elementary Schools 9:15 A.M. 3:15 P.M.
Source: PCSD’s transportation department
PCSD does not transport high school students on district buses. High school students who want to purchase RTA bus passes may do so from their high school. The district subsidizes the student 20 percent. In FY 1997-98, the students purchased a five-ride $5.00 pass for $4.00.
F5.5 The table below illustrates how the districts compare with their bell schedules that affect transportation routing.
Table 5-9: Peer District Bell Schedule Comparison
Parma Canton Dayton South-Western
Number of Tiers 2 tiers 3 tiers 2 tiers 3 tiers
F5.6 PCSD’s transportation department uses a combination of one, two, three and four runs per route with the majority of routes having three runs.
Table 5-10: Analysis of Bus Routes
FY 1997-98 AM Routes Percent of Total PM Routes Percent of Total
One run 1 1% 1 1%
Two runs 25 37% 21 31%
Three runs 41 61% 46 68%
Four runs 1 1% 0 0%
Total 68 100 % 68 100%
Source: PCSD transportation department
F5.7 Table 5-11 shows the number of runs per route by peer district. The PCSD transportation department had the highest percentage of three runs per route, as compared to the other district that had a two-tiered bell schedule. This is accomplished by having a run of the non-public school elementary students, which, in effect gives PCSD a three-tier bell schedule. PCSD transports middle schools, non-public elementary schools and public elementary schools in the morning and non-public elementary schools, middle schools and public elementary schools in the afternoon.
Table 5-11: Peer Analysis of Bus Routing Tiers
Parma Canton Dayton South-Western
FY 1997-98 Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total
One run 1% 5% 1% 4% Two runs 34% 29% 80% 15% Three runs 64% 40% 17% 47% Four runs 1% 22% 2% 32% Five runs 0% 4% 0% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Transportation departments
C5.1 The district’s transportation department has the majority of its routes with three runs. The three runs per route helps minimize the number of buses needed to transport students and indicates an effective use of bus routing software by the transportation department. (F5.56)
State Funding
F5.8 School districts must file annual forms with the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) regarding their transportation services. These forms are used by ODE to determine the reimbursement the district will receive related to their regular and special needs transportation programs. Descriptions of essential state reports and the corresponding effect they have on the transportation at the district are as follows:
T-I Form
The T-1 Form summarizes regular transportation service in terms of pupil usage and mileage for both public and non-public students. This information is then used by ODE to determine the regular transportation reimbursement allocation. The state reimburses at the greater of an amount per student transported over one mile or an amount per mile according to the method used to transport that student. These rates are shown in Table 5-12 for FY’s 1996-97 and 1997-98 by type of transportation provided.
Table 5-12: State of Ohio Transportation Reimbursement Schedule
Dollars per Pupil Cents per Mile Class Type of Transportation Provided
1996-97 1997-98 1996-97 1997-98
Type I Board owned buses 74.50 87.00 .685 .775
Type II Contractor owned buses 74.50 87.00 .685 .775
Type III Public Transportation 74.50 87.00 N/A N/A
Type IV Payment to parent, in lieu of transportation 151.00 172.00 N/A N/A
Type V Board owned vehicles other than school buses N/A N/A .53 .625
Type VI Privately owned vehicles other than school buses N/A N/A .58 .675
Source: Ohio Department of Education
The state funding for transportation is passed through to the district in the state foundation payments twice a month. The state will base the amount of the current year funding on the prior year’s information until the T-1 Form is completed in October. The amount of funding is then adjusted in January. For FY 1997-98, the district’s funding was generated by dollars per pupil for Type I transportation on board-owned buses, Type III transportation on public transportation (RTA) and Type IV payments to parents in lieu of transportation. For Type V transportation on board-owned other vehicles, the district’s funding was based on cents per mile. The district received $657,278 for transportation of regular education students. This state funding represents approximately 31 percent of the district’s transportation costs related to regular education students.
The T-2 Form summarizes the costs associated with the regular bus service. Since the T-2 Form reports annual costs, it is not prepared and filed until after the school year has ended, usually at the beginning of the next school year. Although not directly used for reimbursement purposes, the information is important for developing comparative statistics and trends on both a statewide and local level. In addition, ODE uses the information to ensure the districts have not been reimbursed more than their actual expenditures for regular transportation.
T-11 Form
The T-11 Form summarizes both pupil usage and costs associated with special needs busing. The information is used in computing the special needs reimbursement. The state’s reimbursement formula for special needs transportation is specified in the Ohio Department of Education Rule 3301-51-10(E)(1) as follows:
For eligible children with disabilities, the Department’s Division of School Finance will approve reimbursement for the actual cost of special transportation up to six dollars per instructional day per child and one-half of the actual cost in excess of six dollars per day. Based on the Department of Education’s formula, PCSD should have been reimbursed approximately $844,664 in FY 1997-98 for FY 1996-97 special needs transportation. Although the busing of special needs students is a mandated requirement, the funding formula would only provide reimbursement for approximately 69 percent of the district’s special needs expenditures. In addition, the amount the district actually receives is limited to the amount approved within the state’s budgetary appropriation. For FY 1996-97, the district received only $386,190 or 46 percent of the amount determined by the funding formula and approximately 31 percent of the actual expenditures associated with special needs busing for that year. Due to uncertainty in the amount of funding the district actually receives from the state, reliable budget projections in the area of special needs transportation funding are difficult.
House Bill 770 adjusts the new transportation formula adopted in House Bill 650 which changed transportation funding to include a logarithm which determines the most efficient transportation use cost per transported student for each district. For FY 1998-99, districts are guaranteed the same amount they received for transportation in FY 1997-98. Primarily, House Bill 770 would permit ODE to recalculate each district’s most efficient transportation use cost per transported student annually instead of biennially, and would permit ODE to use the most recent data available in updating the most efficient transportation use cost per student. In addition, ODE is required to apply a 2.8 percent annual inflation rate to the transportation aid calculated for the district when the calculation is based on data that is not current.
F5.9 The T-2 and the T-11 Forms prepared for FY 1997-98 were inaccurate. The salary expenditures were incorrectly reported. The reconciliation of the T-2 and T-11 Forms to
the 4502 report indicated that the T-Forms were overstated primarily due to the fact that all salaries were included in the T-2 Form and did not have the special needs salaries deducted. The special needs salaries included in the T-11 Form were incomplete. In addition, other special needs expenses were not included in the T-11 Form. Corrected forms were resubmitted to the state.
The errors on the T-2 Form would not have affected PCSD’s reimbursement from the state because the reimbursement for regular busing is based primarily on information on the T-1 Form rather than on actual costs. However, the errors would have affected the quality of resulting statistics and hamper meaningful comparisons with other districts and state benchmarks. The errors on the T-11 Form would have affected the districts reimbursement for special needs transportation.
R5.3 The transportation supervisor and the business manager should prepare a worksheet for the preparation of the state forms and reconcile the forms to the 4502 before the forms are submitted to the state. In addition, the worksheet would also provide an audit trail.
Financial Implication: The timeliness of this audit allowed the state T-Forms to be revised.
The errors in the T-11 Form would have caused the district to be under-reimbursed approximately $91,700 based on the percentage received from the state for FY 1996-97. F5.10 The PCSD’s transportation policy does not provide for the transportation of high school
students. However, high school students, both public and non-public, can purchase discounted RTA five-ride passes. The district purchases five-ride passes for $5.00 and sells them to public high school students for $4.00. Non- public high school students purchase their tickets for $4.00 at their high school. RTA invoices the PCSD $1.00 to cover the district’s subsidy on passes sold to non-public high school students. The district’s expenditure for its RTA transportation cost of high school students can be reimbursed by up to $87.00 per pupil from the ODE.
R5.4 In FY 1997-98, the state reimbursed up to $87.00 per student for public transportation. If a student rode the RTA for the entire school year of 180 days, under the current subsidy of 20 percent, the district would receive only $72.00 per student. The district should take full advantage of the state reimbursement by lowering the cost of the five-ride pass to the student so it can maximize its state reimbursement.
Financial Implication: The district, by subsidizing high school student bus passes at 20
percent, receives only $72.00 out of a possible state reimbursement of $87.00. The district should increase its subsidy to the students to 24 percent, or $86.40 for a student who used public transportation everyday for a 180 day school year. This change in subsidy would result in the student saving an additional $14.40 per year, with no additional cost to the district.
180 school days x two rides a day
Five ride ticket = $5.00
Sold @ $4.00
Five ride ticket = $5.00 Sold @ $3.80 Net increase/ (decrease) Cost to Student $288.00 $273.60 ($14.40)
Gross Cost to District $72.00 $86.40 $14.40
State Reimbursement $72.00 $86.40 $14.40
Net Cost to District $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
F5.11 The state funds yellow bus purchases under the following two methods:
• The first funding method deals with “regular” buses. The state is currently allocating funding to the districts based on a complex formula that utilizes the following district data: number of students or miles, a rough road factor, a wealth factor, and equity in funding. These funds are sent to the districts and are to be earmarked by the districts for bus purchases (bus purchase allowance) or to pay for contracted services.
• The second funding method deals with buses identified as non-public or handicapped and are currently reimbursed up to $50,000 per bus assuming they have met the state’s mileage requirement for that year. The state is currently establishing a mileage cutoff based on all non-public and handicapped buses throughout the state and reimbursing the districts which have the buses with the highest mileage. This reimbursement is limited to the dollar level appropriated within the state’s budget.
PCSD’s bus purchase allowance in FY 1997-98 for regular buses was $76,988. The district does not receive many reimbursements for buses identified as non-public or handicapped. In an urban setting, the buses cannot put on the mileage necessary to qualify under the state’s current guidelines. In addition, the state is currently allocating and sending funds to the district based on a complex formula that utilizes the following district data: the number of students or miles, a rough road factor, a wealth factor and equity in funding. According to the ODE, the last non-public or handicap bus reimbursement was in FY 1993 in the amount of $345,487 for nine buses.
General Operations
F5.12 The following table illustrates the increase in actual and budgeted transportation costs.
Table 5-13: Actual and Budgeted Expenditures
FY ‘96-97 Actual FY ‘97-98 Actual Dollar Increase Percent Increase FY ‘98-99 Budgeted Dollar Increase Percent Increase Total Cost $3,662,946 $3,654,713 ($8,233) (0.2%) $3,190,100 ($464,613) (12.7%)
Source: FYs 1996-97 and 1997-987 4502 Reports and the amended temporary appropriation, November 16, 1998.
The business manager stated that the differences in the actual expenditures in FY 1997-98, as compared to FY 1996-97, was caused in part by the following conditions:
• A reduction in workers compensation • Less overtime
• Less severance pay
• Lower fuel expenses due to the mild winter
As explained in the background section, the district has not adopted a permanent appropriation measure. The treasurer, in order to adopt a budget within the certificate of estimated resources, modified various budget request from administrators and appropriated accounts at lesser amounts than were requested. The decrease in FY 1998-99 budget amount does not seem reasonable since the transportation department has not reduced its service and has a two-year history of expenditures averaging over $400,000 more than the budget. F5.13 The Auditor of State analyzed Ohio’s 50 largest school districts, as determined by Average
Daily Membership (ADM), and prepared comparative ratios utilizing the districts’ GAAP basis financial statements. The analysis, presented in Table 5-14, revealed that PCSD pupil transportation expenditures, as a percentage of the total operating expenditures of the general fund and as a percentage of the total operating expenditures of all governmental funds, are above the average of the 50 largest school districts being compared.
Table 5-14: Ratio Analysis - Ohio’s 50 Largest School Districts
Pupil
Transportation Parma Canton Dayton
South-Western
Average of 50 Largest As a percentage of
the Total Operating Expenditures of the General Fund As a percentage of the Total Operating Expenditures of the Governmental Funds 5.21% 4.80% 01 01 7.56% 6.28% 4.40% 3.48% 4.63% 3.95%
Source: Ratio Analysis School District , State of Ohio
1Canton City School District financial reports were not available for this study.
F5.14 Approximately 6,907 regular education public and non-public students are eligible for transportation within the PCSD boundaries. Non-public students are students who live within PCSD boundaries but attend private or parochial schools. The overall cost to transport a PCSD regular education student, for all methods of transportation, is $308 based on FY 1997-98 actual expenditures.
As with most school districts, the cost for PCSD to transport special needs students is dramatically higher than the cost to serve regular education students. An estimated 382 special needs students were eligible for transportation. The cost per special needs student during FY 1997-98 was $3,564 or $3,256 more than the cost to serve regular education students. The following factors help lead to the higher cost for special needs student transportation:
• The number of special needs students requiring transportation and the location of the special education classes to which students are assigned.
• The use of aides on the special needs routes. Aides are assigned to these routes to help the driver load/unload students, to maintain order on the buses and to attend to the special needs of the students. The billing rate for bus attendants averages $11.58 per hour, with a four hour minimum.
• Special needs students may require door-to-door service not available to regular education students. The time required in loading/unloading special needs students is higher than regular students. Both of these factors directly impact the length of time for the route.
• Special equipment is needed to transport special needs students. Some buses purchased for special needs programs require special features (lifts, restraints, etc.) which makes these buses more expensive to purchase and maintain.
• The number of special needs students per bus is usually lower than the regular transportation routes. This is due mainly to the location of the students, the displacement of regular seats, the need for special equipment, the riding time considerations and the individual attention needed by students on these routes.
The following table details the number of students and cost per student for regular and special needs students.
Table 5-15: Transportation Cost
Eligible Students FY 1996-97 Costs Cost per Student
Regular Education 6,907 $2,128,971 $308
Special Needs 382 $1,361,562 $3,564
Total 7,289 $3,490,533
F5.15 Performance of transportation services can be measured by various means. The following table presents selected operating ratios for PCSD and other peer districts for regular education students.
Table 5-16: Regular Education Operational Ratio Peer Comparison
Regular Education
FY 1997-98 Parma Canton Dayton WesternSouth- AveragePeer
District Buses: Operational Data:
Active Buses
Average Driver Wage
Operational Ratios:
Cost per Mile Cost per Bus Cost per Student Students per Bus Number of Students 58 $13.00 $3.61 $34,758 $338 103 5,967 46 $11.05 $3.49 $24,429 $206 118 5,448 176 $10.88 $3.70 $54,059 $642 84 14,809 99 $13.58 $2.13 $32,464 $249 130 12,902 107 $11.84 $3.11 $36,984 $366 111 11,053
Contracted Yellow Buses: Cost per Student
Number of Students N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A
Public Transportation:
Cost per Student Number of Students $171 279 $198 30 $229 5,684 $105 4 $177 1,906
Payment In Lieu of Transportation:
Cost per Student Number of Students $151 579 $172 42 $172 770 $172 255 $172 356
Board owned other than school bus:
Cost per Student Number of Students $261 82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
All Modes of Transportation: Cost per student
Number of Students
$308
6,907 5,520$206 21,263$513 13,161$248 13,315$322
Source: PCSD’s FY 1997-98 T-1 and T-2 Forms Note: PCSD data is not included in the peer average.
1 PCSD high school students purchase a five-ride $5.00 pass for $4.00. This figure represents the 20 percent district
subsidy. Not all of the 279 students rode the bus for the entire school year.
PCSD’s transportation department’s regular education operational ratios do not compare favorably with those of its peer districts. The district had a cost per student on district buses of $338, as compared to Canton City School District and South-Western Public Schools whose costs were $206 and $249 respectively. Additionally, PCSD’s cost per bus of $34,758 was higher than Canton City School District’s $24,429 and South-Western Public
School’s $32,464. Some of the contributing factors that explain PCSD’s higher operating costs include: paying drivers for time not worked (R5.9), too liberal sick leave policy (R5.11), lack of a formal preventive maintenance program (R5.14), too large maintenance staff (R5.15) and a lack of parts inventory management and purchasing practices (R5.17). F5.16 In FY 1997-98, the transportation department paid parents, for payment in lieu of transportation, the state’s FY 1996-97 reimbursement amount and not the FY 1997-98 amount. The district makes payments twice a year, in February and July. Since ODE did not notify the districts until late May of the new amount, the PCSD district did not change its July payment. Since payments are 100 percent reimbursed by the state, parents in the PCSD could have received an additional $21.00 per student.
C5.2 Table 5-16 shows that the district is utilizing the capacity of the buses in its fleet. PCSD operates one bus for every 103 students receiving transportation services. Bus utilization capacity is defined at 85 percent of the manufacturer’s seating capacity for the bus. The district has an estimated bus utilization capacity of 90 percent. This high rate of bus utilization capacity is a result of the district’s reliance on its computerized routing software which is further explained in F5.56.
F5.17 The table below illustrates the special needs transportation operational ratios of the peer districts. The emphasis of the comparison is the cost of transportation per student by the various methods used to transport special needs students.
Table 5-17: Special Needs Operational Ratios Peer Comparison
Special Needs Education
FY 1997-98 Parma Canton Dayton WesternSouth- AveragePeer
District Buses: Operational Data: Average Driver Wage
Average Bus Aide Wage
Operational Ratios:
Cost per Mile Cost per Student Number of Students $13.00 $8.00 $5.64 $4,077 212 $11.05 $7.20 $3.27 $1,121 438 $13.24 $10.09 $3.45 $2,426 922 $15.10 $11.16 $1.68 $3,224 171 $13.13 $9.48 $2.80 $2,257 510
District owned other vehicles:
Cost per Student
Number of Students $3,78772 $1,54110 $3,1776 N/AN/A $2,3668
Contracted Yellow Buses:
Cost per Student
Number of Students N/AN/A $4,6906 $2,47676 N/AN/A $3,58341
Contracted Other Vehicles:
Cost per Student Number of Students $2,888 70 $2,191 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A $2,191 20 Parent/Guardian Contract:
Cost per Student Number of Students $151 1 $2,092 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.092 1 Public Transportation:
Cost per Students Number of Students N/A N/A N/A N/A $229 20 N/A N/A $229 20 Taxi:
Cost per Student Number of Students
$823
27 $51010 $92221 N/AN/A $71616
All Modes of Transportation:
Cost per Student Number of Students $3,564 382 $1,208 485 $2,141 1,045 $3,224 171 $2,191 567
Source: PCSD’s T-11 Form and transportation department records Note: PCSD’s data is not included in the peer average.
special needs buses. In addition, PCSD cost per student for all modes of transportation for special needs students was higher than the peer district average and was the highest of the four districts being compared. Also, the district special needs transportation costs on contracted other vehicles is higher than the other districts using this service, and higher than the peer average of the four school districts reviewed in the last performance audit. The transportation supervisor stated that vendors used for contracted transportation and taxis have not been changed in years.
The district does not use parental contracts too often since most of PCSD schools are neighborhood schools, and those parents that transport their child have not asked for reimbursement. Parental contracts are paid to parents in an amount to which both parties agree. In one case where a parent has requested reimbursement, the district paid the parent the same amount that the state reimburses parents for payment in lieu of transportation. R5.5 The district should competitively bid or solicit price quotations for special needs
transportation services. Price quotations should be documented and submitted along with the purchase requisition before the purchase order is processed. Annual solicitation of price quotations, or bids, will help ensure that the district is receiving the best possible price and that vendor selection is made objectively.
F5.18 PCSD identifies special education students as required by federal and state laws and follows the steps outlined in “Whose IDEA is This?: A Resource Guide for Parents” published by the Ohio Department of Education. Once it is determined that a child has a disability, an individualized education program (IEP) must be written for the child. The IEP includes a statement of specific special education and related services, including transportation. The IEP will indicate if specialized busing service is required and the type of service needed. Not all special education students require specialized transportation. Those students who can be accommodated through the regular transportation program are classified as regular riders. Only those special education students requiring special transportation services are classified as special needs riders. Therefore, the number of special education students found elsewhere in this report may exceed the number of special needs students used in the transportation section.
Ohio Administrative Code Section, 3301-51-10(C)(2) states the following:
School district transportation personnel shall be consulted in the preparation of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) when transportation is required as a related service and when children’s needs are such that information to ensure the safe transportation and well-being of the child is necessary to improve such transportation. There is little involvement by the transportation department in the development of the IEP when a determination is made that the student requires special transportation services.
F5.19 The student services department determines the special needs students attendance times at school. The starting and ending times for special needs students vary by individual students. The director of student services stated that the district utilizes many starting and ending times for its special needs students because some students cannot cope with being in school too long or they cannot handle the confusion with the mass of students at the regular starting and ending times.
R5.6 The non-standard arrival and dismissal times for special needs students causes multiple runs which increases transportation cost. If transportation personnel were involved in the IEP process for all students who require special transportation services, and used their experience with transporting students, transportation services and costs could be better controlled. PCSD identifies1,929 students as special needs for educational purposes, but it recognizes only 382 of these students, or 20 percent, as special needs for the purpose of transportation. PCSD’s cost of transporting a student on a regular yellow bus is $388 as compared with the cost of transporting a student on a special needs yellow bus which is $4,077 and $3,787 for transportation with the district’s station wagons. Since the cost of regular student transportation is much less than the cost of special needs transportation, the district would benefit by ensuring all students riding on special needs buses actually need the additional service.
Financial Implication: If the district would re-evaluate the IEPs and were able to change
the special needs transportation requests to regular needs transportation by only 10 to 20 percent of the 212 special needs students on district buses and reduce one to two special needs buses and attendants, the savings would be approximately $61,000 to $122,000, net of state reimbursements. In addition, there would be a cost avoidance of $50,000 to $100,000 in not having to replace these buses.
F5.20 The table below presents statistics relating to non-public riders in the peer districts.
Table 5-18: Non-public Student Transportation Peer Comparison
FY 1997-98 Parma Canton Dayton South-Western
Non-public Students Eligible to Ride 2,506 610 2,429 981
Non-public Students on District Buses 1,820 568 1,059 722
% On District Buses 73% 93% 43% 74%
Cost per Student $338 $206 $642 $249
Non-public Students on Contracted Buses N/A N/A N/A N/A
% On Contracted Bus N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cost per Student N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paid “In Lieu of Being Transported” 571 42 770 255
% Paid “In Lieu of Being Transported” 23% 7% 32% 26%
Cost per Student $151 $172 $172 $172
Non-public Students on Public Transportation 115 N/A 600 4
% On Public Transportation 4% N/A 25% <1%
Cost per Student $17 N/A $229 $105
Average Cost Per Student $308 $206 $513 $228
Source: Transportation departments’ T-1 and T-2 Forms
Note: PCSD pays RTA 20 cents for each ride pass the parochial school purchases from RTA for the transportation
F5.21 PCSD utilizes parents to transport students to non-public schools in lieu of transportation on district buses. Parents were paid $151 per child during school year 1997-98 to transport their children. The state advances school districts for 100 percent of this annually determined amount based on data reported on the T-1 Form.
The following table details statistics relating to non-public students and cost per student by transportation method.
Table 5-19: Cost of Transportation for Non-public Students
Non-public Students StudentsEligible TotalCost Cost perStudent
Bused by PCSD 1,820 $615,160 $338
Bused by RTA 115 $1,955 $17
Paid “In Lieu of Being Transported” 571 $85,650 $150
Total 2,506 $702,765
Source: FY 1997-98 T-1 and T-2 Forms
Note: PCSD pays RTA 20 cents for each ride pass that a parochial school purchases from RTA for the
transportation of parochial high school students. Not all of the115 students rode the bus for the entire school year.
R5.7 PCSD should develop a program that would promote the transportation of non-public students through “payment in lieu” of transportation. The cost associated with payments in lieu of transportation for FY 1998 was $151 whereas, the cost for district bus transportation was $338, or a difference of $187 per student.
Financial Implication: If the district could increase the number of payments “in lieu of
transportation” by another 5 to10 percent of the eligible non-public students on district buses, the district could reduce one to two buses and save approximately a net of $20,000 to $40,000 plus a cost avoidance $50,000 to $100,000 in not having to replace one to two buses.
F5.22 Statistics representing regional and national median figures were obtained from the 1997
American School & University’s Maintenance and Operations Cost Study. Figures from
Region 5 of the AS&U Cost Study include districts residing in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. The AS&U Cost Study numbers reflect all students, whether they are transported or not.
The following table reflects PCSD’s comparison with other peer districts and the regional and national medians.
Table 5-20:
Comparison of Transportation Expenditures
Percent of Total District Operating Expenditures Parma Region 5 National Median 4.71% 4.98% 4.16% Canton Dayton South-Western Peer Average 2.72% 7.56% 4.20% 4.83% Source: FY 1997-98 4502 reports
PCSD spent less per student on transportation than the median of other Region 5 districts, and more than the national median. Compared to its peer districts, PCSD had the third highest percentage of transportation expenditures as a “Percentage of Total District Operating Expense.”
Personnel
F5.23 The transportation department is managed by a transportation supervisor, who is supported by an assistant transportation supervisor, a secretary and one clerk. The bus drivers and bus monitors report to the assistant transportation supervisor. The department has a lead mechanic who supervises six mechanics and three mechanic helpers. The transportation supervisor and the lead mechanic report to the business manager.
All positions are civil service; however, the transportation supervisor and the transportation assistant supervisor positions do not require a test. The transportation supervisor, assistant transportation supervisor and the lead mechanic are contract positions.
The Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) represents the following transportation employees: Local 122 mechanics and mechanic helpers; Local 160 secretary and clerical and Local 695 represents bus drivers and bus monitors.
F5.24 In review of the job descriptions for the transportation employees, it was noticed that the three classes of mechanic job descriptions have not been updated since November 1982. In addition, the mechanic job descriptions did not contain a current requirement of the district that the mechanics must hold a commercial driver’s license.
R5.8 The three mechanic job descriptions should be reviewed and updated to include today’s current work requirements including the holding of a commercial driver’s license. Also, the lead mechanic position should be reviewed for its reporting structure. Currently the lead mechanic reports to the business manager and not to the transportation supervisor. This reporting structure leaves the management of the transportation department in a compromised position. The transportation supervisor is not in control of the lead mechanic’s personal scheduling - including sick leave, the transportation’s maintenance and repair budget - including inventory and a true chain-of-command for the mechanics and mechanic helpers. By realigning the reporting structure of the lead mechanic to the transportation supervisor, there would be a single responsibility point for the transportation department. F5.25 The contract, effective February 1, 1998, states that only classified school bus drivers with
a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and state certification will be allowed to operate any school bus or station wagon that is owned or leased by the PCSD and used for the purpose of transporting students. A mechanic or monitor with a CDL and state certification can be utilized in an emergency situation. The monitor is given the first opportunity to drive. An exception is allowed for extra trips utilizing a station wagon which involves the transportation of seven or less students to one activity.
of September 1, 1995, were guaranteed five and one-half hours of work for A.M. and P.M. runs once they complete eight years of bus driving service in the PCSD. On the start of the drivers ninth year (anniversary date), a four and one-half hour driver may bid on a five and one-half hour route if one is available and receive a five and one-half hour guarantee. If no route is available, the employee will remain at the four and one-half hour guarantee until the start of the next school year.
Drivers who have a five and one-half hour guarantee are required to bid on selected runs to maintain the five and one-half hour guarantee. The group of runs includes routes that have been determined to be over five hours, or have the potential to go over five hours. Drivers with a five and one-half hour guarantee, in conjunction with a midday bid, cannot exceed eight hours per day.
All other regular bus drivers employed by the school after September 1, 1995 are guaranteed four and one-half hours of work for A.M. and P.M. runs. The contract specifies six positions of spares which also have a four and one-half hour guarantee. All special needs bus and station wagon routes are placed in the five and one-half hour guarantee group. The contract provides for bus monitors to be guaranteed the same A.M., P.M. and midday hours as the drivers with whom they work.
C5.3 The district is limiting the driver total route bids so that the total time does not exceed eight hours and limiting the number of five and one-half hour guaranteed routes. The eight hour limit does not allow the bus driver to have fixed overtime.
R5.9 In review of the driver route sheets and time cards, it was determined that the district is overpaying bus drivers and monitors for time not worked. The difference was in the guaranteed hours. In the analysis, bus drivers were allowed their 30 minutes (15 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes in the afternoon) for pre-trip inspection, fueling and cleaning the inside of their bus. If a route sheet did not show a garage leave time, 15 minutes were allowed to reach their first stop.
Financial Implication: The analysis of the route sheets and time cards indicated that 49
drivers were overpaid almost 26 minutes a day equaling 1,258 total minutes or approximately 21 hours per day. Assuming 180 days and an average driver salary of $13.00 per hour, the district is overpaying an estimated $67,000 annually in salary and benefits. Since bus monitors are paid the same hours as the bus drivers, they were also paid for time not worked. The total time not worked for bus monitors was 228 minutes or approximately 4 hours per day. Assuming 180 days and an average bus monitor salary of $8.00 per hour, the district is overpaying an estimated $7,500 annually in salary and benefits. The total financial implication of salary and benefits for payment to bus drivers and bus monitors for time not worked is estimated at over $74,500 per year.
guaranteed hours since the monitor does not perform certain functions performed by the bus driver including a one-half hour pre-trip inspection.
Financial Implication: The district employs 14 five and one-half hour bus monitors with an
average pay rate of $8.00 an hour. Based on a school year of 180 days, this extra one-half hour of unworked pay costs the district over $10,000.
F5.27 Classification seniority applies only to the transportation department employees for bidding and bumping. The bid process takes place two days prior to the general employee meeting for drivers and monitors. The date of the general meeting is established and posted prior to the end of the preceding school year and takes into consideration both public and non-public start date calendars.
After the August bid, any route that becomes vacant, or any route that changes by 30 minutes, is made available for bid. Routes are awarded to the most senior driver who bids. If a route subsequently becomes vacant as a result of filling a route, the newly created vacant route will also be posted. This procedure can continue for no more than two additional openings. Should a fourth route become available, it is to be assigned to the least senior spare driver on active pay status.
C5.4 The district’s new contract further limits the number of routes that will be bid when a route becomes vacant due to a previous bid. The previous contract called for three additional bids whereas the new contract limits the bid process to two additional bids. By limiting the number of routes that will be bid, the district restricts the domino effect of routes that have to be bid and keeps the drivers on their previously bid route. This procedure allows the driver to get to know the route and the students, and the students, along with school personnel, to get to know the driver.
F5.28 All transportation personnel receive sick leave, personal leave and holiday pay. Bus drivers and bus monitors, are considered 38 week employees and receive the following leave benefits:
• Sick leave accumulated at a rate of 15 days per year of service. The maximum number of sick leave days that can be accumulated is unlimited.
• Three personal days.
• Eight holidays plus Independence Day if they work the day before and after the holiday.
Transportation employees that work 52 weeks a year receive 15 sick days, 3 personal days and 11 holidays. Vacation days earned are 10 days after one year of service, 15 days after five years of service, 17 days after seven years of service, 20 days after 10 years of service, 22 days after 12 years of service and 25 days after 15 years of service.
F5.29 The district’s contract with the transportation employees states that a person who has been ill for a period of twenty (20) or more consecutive work days may be required by the business manager to submit a doctor’s certificate indicating that they can assume regular duties. The contract further states an employee may be required to provide a physician’s medical certificate if the employee is absent for more than 10 consecutive work days. F5.30 The transportation department is able to reduce its transportation costs with the use of
substitute bus drivers who are not guaranteed any hours. However, transportation employees averaged 11.3 days of sick leave in FY 1997-98. Further analysis on absenteeism is covered in the human resource section of this report.
R5.11 The district’s contract with OAPSE is too liberal in its language to require a medical certificate only after an employee is absent 10 consecutive work days. The district should try to negotiate a change in its contract to lower the number of consecutive work days that may be missed before a medical certificate is required from 10 consecutive work days to three consecutive work days. This lower limit will help the transportation department to better manage its sick leave.
F5.31 The transportation department’s hiring practices for bus drivers include background checks, fingerprinting check and physical examinations. Bus driver candidates must register with civil service. Only those bus driver candidates who have passed the background checks, physical examination, including hospital administered drug and TB tests, and have no more than two points on their driver’s license are allowed into the district’s training program. Once accepted for training, the bus driver candidates become employees and are paid during training. The fingerprint check, through the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, is usually received during training.
The district has a bus driver who is certified by the Ohio Department of Education to give training. The training consists, of a minimum of 25 hours of classroom training and eight hours of bus driving time. The training culminates in the driving of a predetermined route designed to test drivers abilities and reactions to various road and traffic conditions. In addition, bus driver candidates are required to ride selected buses to observe specialized operations such as orthopedic student transportation. Only after successful completion of all phases of the training program is a person scheduled for an appointment to secure a commercial driver’s license (CDL). After the bus driver candidate receives a CDL, they are scheduled for training with the Ohio Department of Education for an additional one week of training in order to receive their school bus driver’s certificate. Bus driver candidates are paid during training and the district also pays the $35.00 registration fee for the ODE training. Bus drivers’ 75 paid work days probation period begins after they receive their CDL from the State Highway Patrol.
maintain their school bus certificate, and an evaluation. Starting in FY 1998-99, the transportation supervisor started observing bus drivers actually driving buses and their handling of students. These observations then become part of the driver’s annual evaluation. Prior to this school year, bus drivers were evaluated in the transportation supervisor’s office. R5.12 The transportation user survey had comments which reflected the timeliness of the buses. The district should keep a log, by driver, recording late arrivals and other complaints. This log could be used during the year to improve bus service and serve as an objective document during evaluations.
Bus Fleet and Maintenance
F5.33 The transportation department operates 85 buses which includes 20 spares and five athletic buses. Operating statistics that are commonly used to review the age and condition of the bus fleet are based on the average bus age and the average mileage by model year. The PCSD bus fleet has an average age of 5.8 years.
There are no state guidelines for bus replacement. A general consensus among the Department of Education, private bus contractors and transportation departments is that buses should be replaced at 12 years of age or 200,000 miles for diesel buses and 150,000 miles for gasoline buses. However, regardless of age or mileage, as long as a bus can pass inspection, the district may continue to use the bus for transportation. PCSD does not have any buses exceeding the parameter for replacement because of high mileage and only two buses that exceed the parameter for age. However, the district does have 17 buses that are eleven years old. The following table provides the number of buses by model year, seat capacity and an average mileage for the model year.
Table 5-21: Bus Fleet Analysis
Number of Buses by Seat Capacity Model Year 35 65 71 Total Current Average Mileage FY 1997-98 1985 2 2 112,800 1987 17 17 118,880 1990 5 5 91,120 1991 6 5 11 82,240 1992 2 11 13 69,390 1993 5 2 3 10 62,290 1995 2 2 28,300 1996 4 6 10 20,570 1997 7 7 15,790 1998 8 8 1,700 Total 24 37 24 85
Source: PCSD’s transportation department
F5.34 In March 1997, the transportation supervisor prepared a memo to the business manager outlining a bus replacement plan so that the school district would not have any buses older than 12 years of age. In order to meet that schedule for the school year 2004, eight to nine school buses would have to be purchased annually starting in FY 1998. The memo did not estimate the financial implications. Although the bus replacement seems aggressive, it is necessary in order to smooth out the large group purchase of buses in some years and no bus purchases in other years. The following table illustrates the district’s plan for replacement:
Table 5-22: PCSD’s Bus Replacement Plan
Fiscal Year Number of Buses to be
Replaced Average Age at Time ofReplacement
FY 1997-98 9 12.8 years FY 1998-99 9 12.0 years FY 1999-00 9 13.0 years FY 2000-01 8 10.6 years FY 2001-02 8 11.0 years FY 2002-03 8 11.0 years
Source: PCSD’s business affairs office
F5.35 In FY 1998, the district purchased eight 71-passenger school buses. The buses were purchased through the Ohio Schools Council Cooperative Purchase of School Bus Chassis and Bodies for a combined cost of $50,109 for each school bus. There is a detailed explanation of the Ohio Schools Council Cooperative Purchasing programs in the payroll and procurement section of this report. The district has made a decision to replace its 65-passenger school buses with 71-65-passenger school buses because the incremental cost was only 1.4 percent more and the larger buses gave the district more flexibility in scheduling more students per bus.
The district did not follow the March 1997 memo on which buses would be replaced, but replaced two newer buses that were in need of major repairs. Based on the replacement plan outlined in Table 5-22, and using the cost of the FY 1998 buses, the district can anticipate spending between $400,000 - $450,000 each fiscal year to achieve their goal of maintaining a bus fleet that does not have any buses older than 12 years of age.
C5.5 The transportation’s service department utilized a purchasing cooperative which maximized their purchasing power. The cost to join the cooperative for bus purchases was $550. This fee enabled the district to minimize its overhead costs for a bid because the fee included legal advertising, bid preparation, bid printing, bid distribution and bid tabulations. It is also commendable that the district’s lead mechanic takes an active role in the
