Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

staff should work on this

I think the board and superintendant should require the administrators, possibly the business manager, to do this cost analysis, in a business this would be a responsiblity before awarding a bid. The public should not have to be the figure providers in this case....although in the past that is exactly what has happened because the board and super did not require this type of anaylsis...

Phone Call

I made a phone call and asked a few questions. District Office phone is 833-2110. Information on the Bus Contract including the proposal's are at the District office, the proposals are a couple of inches thick each which precludes them from being on the districts website - multiple copies are available so if you want to take a look - it's possible.

A comparison has been made by a transportation consultant hired by the district, it's a public record and available with a request. I think his name is Dave but don't remember the last name.

Rather than waiting to ''release'' your data - why not take 15 minutes and pick up the real thing. If you have concerns or comments why not share them with the Board before they vote?

Personally, I think a proactive approach is more effective than being a Monday morning quarterback. But then again I liked the Steelers.....

By Another taxpayer

Here are the figures

You've got to just love this.
I go out of town on a business trip and we get ?“Another Taxpayer?” having the ridiculous compulsion to concoct the fallacious argument here that I am at some sort of ?“fault?” for not calling the school office.

First off?… I?’ve put forth the question of BASELINE COST for transportation?… those being the per rider ship bucks before we went and outsourced the district transportation. Why does it matter if YOU ?“Another Taxpayer?” or I ask for these facts? It is clear that you had them on the phone and you could not ask this basic question. What gives?


Some background is appropriate here. Years ago I was requested to help PATA and I did research for the organization on the transportation cost issue. I was reluctant to be a front person, was happy to research, and ?“believed?” that THE COMMUNITY would ?“get it?” when documented facts were made available. I know they were given to the newspapers at that time. Nothing was ever reported.

The sources of these facts were online via EMIS. EMIS stands for Education Management Information Systems and is an operation of the State of Ohio Education Department. So ?“watcher/joiner?” does that ?“satisfy?” your curiosity of whether I am guessing or KNOWING the data at issue?

Per EMIS Supplemental Services Transportation Costs figures for the three years prior to outsourcing bussing the Pickerington Local School District averaged just over $161 per pupil. By the third year of outsourcing EMIS data indicated that per pupil cost had risen to $445. For those of you that like percentages, that?’s a 275% increase. Sadly, (or should that be curiously) EMIS no longer makes such figures available online to the public. Isn?’t that strange because the state still REQUIRES each district to report transportation facts and figures to them! But what the heck, why make the information available to the taxpaying public?

Outsourcing Probably Costs More

Just looking at the matter intuitively, it seems likely that outsourcing school transportation should cost more than providing the service in-house.

An outside contractor's costs are no less than a school district's and, in addition, the contractor must pay taxes and make a profit. Indeed, in this area, a contractor's costs are likely to be higher. Contractors, for example, don't receive state aid for purchasing school buses. Contractors also don't benefit for special purchasing arrangements available to school districts. Thus, even while outsourcing school busing to Laidlaw, the PLSD has continued to purchase all the gasoline and diesel fuel used by the buses, because the PLSD can purchase it cheaper.

As a school board member, I opposed the last renewal of Laidlaw's contract. Laidlaw then on the brink of bankruptcy, and was our only bidder. Moreover, the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the other two potential bidder smelled very fishy to me.

So I recommended that the administration calculate the costs of bringing busing back in-house. Our business manager flatly refused to do so, or even to work with me in calculating those costs -- which is one of the reasons I voted against the next renewal of her contract.

Thus I undertook the project myself. I obtained Laidlaw's payroll expense, figuring that ours would be about the same. I obtained bids from insurance carriers. I calculated what it would cost to lease purchase the portion of the bus fleet that the PLSD did not own from Laidlaw. We already pay half the rent for the bus garage in Pataskala, so I added in the other half of the rent. By my calculations, the PLSD's savings would have been substantial had we brought this function back in-house.

For some peculiar reason, however, the administration and three members of the board were unwilling even to listen to me, or to look seriously at this alternative.

Thus I am very disappointed that the School Board apparently has been unwilling, this time around, to take a serious look at this alternative. Perhaps, once again, their view has been clouded by the PLSD's recalcitrant business manager.