District 304 Checks the Box, Delivers Inadequate Transportation Study
January 29, 2010
I was surprised at the small turnout for this particular Board meeting. I’d guess there were no more than 20 people in the audience. Since I was there early, I wonder why I picked up the last available “Audience Packet”? Could it be that the District did not want too many copies of this floating around? Surely they wouldn’t be that petty, would they?
So we move on to the the actual presentation itself, presented by Donna Oberg. Just as she began, our Superintendent jumped in to say that the presentation and the supporting documents will be posted on the website. Well, it’s now Thursday evening and if it’s there, it’s well hidden and I can’t find it. What is it with these guys that they say it will be on the website and then it never gets posted? I guess they’ve learned there are no consequences for lying to the public.
The audience packet shows that this supposedly in-depth Transportation study consisted of just 17 slides.
Slide 1: The title slide of the presentation deck – “Transportation Comparative Cost Analysis”.
Slide 2: Introduction: “The purpose of this analysis is to compare methods of transportation, cost, and state reimbursement as it relates to a per-mile-cost for each district.”
Slide 3: Resources – various sources of information used in the study
Slide 4: Methods of Providing Transportation. A slide listing Purchasing, Purchasing/buy back, Lease/buy-back and Contracting
Slide 5: Districts Reviewed – Geneva 304, Lake Zurich 95, St. Charles 303, Kaneland 302, Aurora West 129, DeKalb 428 and Batavia 101.
Slide 6: Bus Information – a table detailing the size of each district in square miles, the number of full and mini buses, whether they purchase or contract for buses and the number of full time and part time equivalent mechanics employed.
Slide 7: Route Information – a table showing the number of routes, the average length of the routes in minutes, the number of students per route and the number of approved Hazardous routes.
Slide 8: Cost Analysis – a slide defining Regular, Vocational and Special Education pupils transported, Transported Miles and Non-Reimbursable Miles
Slide 9: Cost Analysis – defined Direct Cost, Building and Maintenance Cost, Allowable Depreciation, Revenue, Indirect Cost and Net Cost
Slide 10: State Reimbursement Calculation
Slide 11: Regular Pupil Transportation net cost per mile graph
Slide 12: Vocational Transportation net cost per mile graph
Slide 13: Special Education Pupil Transportation net cost per mile graph
Slide 14: District Per Mile Cost (for the 7 districts studied)
Slide 15: Other Information – Hazardous Routes, Safe Schools, Private School Costs and Mechanic to Bus Ratio
Slide 16: Additional Areas of Savings – Preschool, In-District Special Education and Vocational Education
Slide 17: Summary -4 bullet points as follows:
1. Comparisons are Difficult (State Formula and differences in districts)
2. Net Cost per mile is the most accurate comparison
3. Geneva has one of the lowest net cost per mile of comparable districts studied.
4. Continuously seeking cost savings via
* Adjustment of School Schedule
* Consolidation of Kindergarten Routes
* Reduction of Fleet
* Bringing Safe Schools transportation in-house
* Reviewing Transportation in other programs
So then we get to the Board asking questions. It quickly became apparent from their questions that there were additional spreadsheets provided to them, but not included in the Audience Packet. I don’t have these handouts, which I presume are the supporting documents our Superintendent referenced at the beginning of Oberg’s presentation and which were promised but are still not posted on the District’s website. If I were a more cynical man, I’d say all of this was done with malice aforethought and that this District does not want anyone to freely review this information. What are they hiding?
As is normally the case, Mark Grosso was the only Board member to ask any really probing questions. He had a specific question from the non-public spreadsheets regarding why our Transportation salaries were $1 Million higher than Lake Zurich. Oberg did not have the answer, but speculated that it could be due to administrative costs and our very high driver salaries. She said she would get back to him with the answer. You know, the next day and privately.
Oberg also claimed that Geneva’s Transportation costs per student were the lowest of the seven districts studied, but there was no data or slides presented to detail this. It was odd that she suddenly pivoted away from the average cost per mile metric to the net cost per student metric, when not once in the presentation up to this point was that mentioned.
A couple of other very interesting tidbits were presented I think are worthy of comment. They specifically highlighted the Lake Zurich district as similar to ours in that we are the only two districts around that use the same “bus buy-back’ program. Previously, we had been led to believe that this was some sort of double secret special state program that Geneva was fortunate to be in. Oberg commented in this presentation that the paucity of districts utilizing bus buy-back programs is really a cash flow problem and that most districts can’t afford it! Don’t you all feel special now knowing that Geneva is affluent enough to be only one of two districts with sufficient cash flow (of your tax dollars) to pay for this? And there was still no example or explanation of the actual calculation per bus cost of the program.
Then to top all this off, Oberg said that the switch next year to the two year bus buy-back program was at the request of the bus vendor, Midwest Bus and that they had requested it because they felt they would have a hard time reselling 59, one year old buses! This is absolutely incredible. It was only last month that she stampeded the Board into approving the purchase of these 59 buses for delivery next summer by saying that buses would not be available if the Board failed to act. Do you think it would have been possible to extend the current bus deal and not spend $4.5 Million dollars this summer? But even beyond the missed opportunity to renegotiate the current deal, who’s calling the shots in this district? Apparently not the district.
So did this presentation answer or even attempt to answer the long standing question of what would be the most cost effective Transportation solution for this district? Not even close. While this presentation had some interesting information, it is nothing more than a comparison against other districts on a single metric of the District’s choosing. It certainly did not go far enough or deep enough to legitimately be considered the full blown Transportation study we’ve been waiting months for. The sole conclusion they drove to was that on a cost per mile basis, we are ok in relation to other districts. There was absolutely no attempt to evaluate other Methods of Providing Transportation (Slide 4) or evaluating alternate scenarios to see what could be done to specifically lower OUR district’s costs. There was no analysis of different sourcing strategies, whether they be various in-house options like going to a 3 or 5 year bus replacement program or replacing 20% of the buses annually, or outsourcing some or all of the bus services and maintenance. That would have been a real transportation study. This study as presented did nothing but attempt to validate the status quo using a single metric of cost per mile in relation to other nearby districts. There remains a significant opportunity to dig for ways to reduce costs, but I suppose now that the box has been checked and this incomplete study delivered, the thinking is that they are done, especially since the next buy back deal is inked and the drivers contract is done. No need to look at any of this again until 2012. Kick this can on down the road. How this Board could accept this study as the definitive Transportation study boggles my mind. I can only conclude they are not serious about fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities.
But wait, the District PR machine is apparently cranked up and gunning for FACTS. I thought our propagandist Communication Coordinator was out for a few weeks, but apparently, as with custodians, we must have an extra one on staff somewhere in reserve for these situations. Check out this story in the Daily Herald, uncritically parroting the District line as gospel, and reporting that the FACTS people had no comment at the meeting. Why is the lack of immediate FACTS comment newsworthy? Probably because she came expecting fireworks and was disappointed when there weren’t any. Every good story needs conflict, right? The story also had factual errors regarding the buy back rate and the fact that the presentation did NOT show that Geneva had the lowest cost per mile. Meanwhile, the immediate comments on the website under this article were anti-FACTS attack comments. Looks like the people threatened by this study are venting. But as noted above, they have nothing to worry about from this Board. The really newsworthy part of this meeting was the near total lack of probing questions from the Board members.
But wait, it just keeps getting more interesting. Check out this interesting Geneva Dancing with the Stars update in the Herald. All kidding aside, I really wish Mary Stith a speedy recovery, in spite of her supposedly joking insult to the 200+ concerned citizens of Geneva that happen to be FACTS supporters.
Enough on the Transportation study. The other amazing thing Monday night was part two of the staffing study. I could not believe how many secretaries were on those org charts. I counted 43 deployed as follows: 10 at the District’s Central Offices, two at each of 6 elementary schools, one at Friendship Station Pre-School, four each at Geneva Middle Schools North and South and 12 at the High School. I must say, secretaries are an endangered species in corporate America, but clearly not here in Camelot. What can these administrators be doing all day that would require so many secretaries? Plenty of fat to cut here when push comes to shove.
I really don’t get the lack of urgency or the seeming indifference of this Board to addressing the deficit spending and the draw-down of the reserves. Why do you refuse to reign in this administration? Don’t you realize the time to act is now, when you still have reserves and can make changes from a position of some strength. Initiate a hiring freeze, look at outsourcing options for everything, look at reverse auctions, look at consolidating grade schools, look at everything with a critical eye and a sharp pencil. Then do something. Take your “Tradition of Excellence” motto and apply it to the operational side of the district. Don’t settle for good enough. Don’t you understand that saving money outside of the classroom is money that protects the classroom educational product we all want our children to have? Don’t you read the papers and can’t you see what’s going on in other districts? Don’t you see that Geneva is not immune and only a few million dollars of reserve funds away from having to make some very difficult choices?
Comments
4 Responses to “District 304 Checks the Box, Delivers Inadequate Transportation Study”
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Advertisement
Dave-
You really need to write a short letter to the Herald.
The Stith fall article is full of so many juicy ironies I don’t know where to begin. So, I’ll leave it to your pc comment.
Thanks again for attending, disecting and watchdogging!
You can now review the entire study on the TaxFacts website:
http://www.taxfacts.info/TaxFACTS/Home_files/Transp_Comparative_Cost_Analysis.pdf
Note that of the 33 pages, the financial analysis on pages 27-29 were not presented publicly at the Board meeting and were obtained by FACTS after specifically requesting the study. Page 15 of this document was not presented at the meeting. Most of the other pages beyond page 18 are generally notes pages supporting the prior pages.
Note the total lack of evaluation of any alternate Transportation options for our district.
Dave, well done and keep up the good work. The battle truly needs to be fought in the local papers: letters to the editor, etc. A few key facts, the good ones, clearly stated, and to the point. Aim for the jugular by choosing omitted or misrepresented facts by the Board that will hit home with the average tax payer; e.g., Geneva’s transportation salaries are $1M higher than Lake Zurich. Jesus….that’s huge. Stuff like that resonates with people. There is opportunity here, and the timing is fantastic given the increasing public awareness of out of control spending that is occurring at the nation level.
Oh…and don’t be afraid to mention specific names on the Board who are performing poorly. Not demagogic comments, just highlighting their voting records and comments.