At a regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting on March 8, 2010, the Board unanimously voted to conduct a feasibility study to determine the potential costs and other benefits which would result from contracting out transportation services.
Click here to view the Transportation Feasibility Study Report
Read the Transportation Feasibility Study - Q & A Sheet
1. Why is the Board of Education evaluating the feasibility of contracting out transportation services?
The Board is exercising its due diligence based upon the terms of the current collective bargaining agreement with the bus drivers. Article 10 of the agreement acknowledges the Board's management right to decide to subcontract any or all work performed by bargaining unit employees. However, the Board may only decide to do so after conducting a formal feasibility study to determine the potential costs and other benefits which would result from contracting out the work.
2. What recourse does the union have in the event the Board concludes based upon the feasibility study to subcontract any or all bargaining work?
According to the terms of the agreement, before the Board could subcontract any or all bargaining work, it must provide the union with 30 days notice of its intent to do so. During that time-frame, the union may submit an alternative proposal. If the union's proposal would result in providing quality and savings equal to or greater than management's proposal, then the parties will agree in writing to implement the union proposal.
3. What is the projected cost of continuing to operate our own school transportation program in 2010-2011?
The projected cost of continuing in-house transportation services is estimated to be $876,000 based on the current level of services and budgeted costs for 2010 11. This cost does not include the increasing cost of providing Alternative Transportation to special needs students both within and outside the school district due to the inability of our bus operation to provide the necessary vehicles.
4. How many students do we presently transport with our own vehicles?
• In Town — 279 students PVMS and 153 students PPMS on 13buses
• NFA — 179 students on 5 buses AM and 8 buses PM
• Ledyard HS and VO-AG — 24 students on 2 buses
• Norwich Tech — 23 students on 1 bus
• Grasso Tech — 3 students on 1 bus
• Dual Language Academy —1 student and Science & Tech Magnet HS — 5 students on 1 bus
• 1SSAC —1 student and RMMS — 4 students on 1 bus
• Independent Day Charter School 18 students on 1 bus
5. How many public school districts in Connecticut own and operate their transportation programs?
Among 169 public school districts in the state of Connecticut, 13 districts including Ashford, Canterbury, Glastonbury,, Killingly, Montville, Newington, Plainfield, Preston, Putnam, Sterling, Thompson, Voluntown and Woodstock, own and operate their school transportation program.
6. What will happen to the current transportation staff if the Board of Education decides to sub-contract out transportation services in 2010-2011?
In the event that the board were to sub-contract out transportation services in 2010-2011, it would stipulate in its request for proposals that the successful contractor must consider current employees for employment. Typically, a transportation contractor will employ many, if not all, of a school district's employees.
7. I thought that we purchased new buses a few years ago and are still paying down the debt. What would happen to those vehicles (and the debt) if the board decides to contract out transportation services?
The Request for Proposal would provide a listing of all the current vehicles and request that the bidders include in the proposal a buy-out of the current fleet, which consists of eighteen Type I and three Type II buses. Twelve of these vehicles are 2006 International buses. The other vehicles are in the 1998-2001 model years. All of these vehicles would likely be sold to the bidder or made available to other transportation companies in the state. The sale of the vehicles would pay off the outstanding debt service.
8. It is my understanding that the Town just replaced the roof on the bus garage at a cost of $90,000. And a few years ago, we spent money to erect new fencing around the perimeter of the yard. Wasn't that a waste of money if the board decides to contract out transportation services?
Replacing the garage roof was a sound investment of taxpayer dollars. If the board decides to contract out transportation services, it will still be necessary to provide a safe and secure facility for the contractor's fleet. In fact, the board would require the contractor's fleet to be on-site in order to ensure efficiency and timely maintenance of the fleet. So, regardless of whether the board continues to own and operate its own school transportation service or sub-contracts those services, the improvements to the facility were wise. Transportation Feasibility Study.
9. Possible cost savings aside, are there any other advantages associated with contracting out transportation services?
• Contractors have a larger pool of drivers and vehicles to cover the districts transportation needs, thereby eliminating the need to hire substitute drivers and maintain-reserve vehicles.
• The contractor would be responsible for all employee related costs and employment issues, which would eliminate unemployment and workers' compensations costs, legal costs associated with labor issues, health and payroll benefit costs, etc.
• Vehicle replacement and retrofitting costs to meet arising legislative, legal and DMV requirements would be the responsibility of the contractor.
• District bus routes could be reduced through consolidation and coordinated with other districts and carriers as needed.
• The contractor would pay property taxes on all vehicles housed in Preston as required by contract.
10. How would the board select an outside transportation provider?
As a matter of law and prevailing school board policy, it would be incumbent on the board to solicit sealed competitive bids among outside contractors according to a timeframe prescribed in the law for that purpose. The award of a contract would be subject to the board's explicit approval.