The $1.7 million Q&A

M-W transportation chief outlines Proposition 2 to purchase 22 buses Central Valley - In addition to voting on a $126.4 million budget and three candidates for the school board, voters in the Monroe-Woodbury School District also will decide on a $1.7 million proposal to purchase 22 buses, 19 new ones and three refurbished vehicles. The following information comes from a PowerPoint presentation created by Cliff Berchtold, the director of transportation for the Monroe-Woodbury School District, as part of the district’s effort to gain support for Proposition 2 in next Tuesday’s school budget vote. First, some background by the numbers: • 8,000+: the number of passengers carried by M-W buses each school day to public and non-public schools. • 153: the number of buses serving the M-W district schools (an area covering 100-square miles), plus schools in four other counties. • 200+: the number of full- and part-time employees. Most are part-time drivers and bus attendants. • $7 million: The district’s transportation budget, or about 6 percent of overall school spending. Here are some of the frequently asked questions - and answers - found in Berchtold’s presentation: The buses look OK. Why do we need new ones? School buses, especially our “flat-front” type, look about the same, whether they are four or 14 years old. We do our best to keep them looking good, but when you look closer, or look underneath, the age shows. (Some buses) have numerous skin panels replaced due to years of corrosion. Why so many buses in Prop 2? Our fleet is 93 large buses and 60 small buses on 12-year and 9-year replacement cycles (“normal” means replacing 15 buses a year). We did not get 16 needed buses in 2003-04 ($1.3 million Prop 2 was not approved by voters). We did not get 19 needed buses in 2005-02 ($1.8 million Prop 2 was not approved by voters). We’re re-routing 14-year-old buses (#251-262). So we may need SOME buses. But why ask for 22? Isn’t that a “Christmas list?” Why don’t we keep M-W buses longer? New York State and national large bus average is 10 years. Severe service: • School bus year vs. car years. • Stop-and-go, idling, passenger wear-and-tear. • De-icing chemicals (10,000 tones per winter). Current safety features: • Pupil protection available in a timely way. Environmental improvements Money (old buses waste it) Why don’t we buy less expensive buses like some of our neighboring fleets? You might have heard that we buy “gold-plated” buses. We don’t, but there is a difference in buses. The “Type C” bus has the engine out front, as in a truck, and the door behind the front wheels. The “Type D” bus, on the other hand, has the engine under the floor (no hood in front) and the door ahead of the wheels. According to New York State contract information, Type C buses cost $87,000; a Type D bus with the same specs would be about $97,000. Here are the advantages that make Type D buses a better fit for our pupil transportation needs: Safety: Direct view of the forward danger zone. Capacity: Two extra rows of seats. Cost: 11 percent more, but 18 percent more capacity. Maneuverability: Avoiding backing in cul-de-sacs and tight lots. I see buses that look half-empty. Why don’t we put more kids on the buses? Routing optimum is 55 per bus (a seat for all). • “Mother cars” and “guest riders.” • Early Middle School programs. • High School drivers. • Activity buses. • Growth. • High-back seats. We are required by law to provide a seat for all passengers. We cannot carry standees. The high-back seats can hide smaller children, making the bus look less full than it actually is. Will new buses help the environment? The new buses will have only 5 percent of the emissions of older buses. Two defeated Prop 2 haven’t seemed to affect busing. Why should we approve new buses this year? • Now leasing school buses (local bids). • Recent (expensive) contracted routes. • Life of older buses already “stretched.” • Illogical, expensive repairs. • Limit to feasible repairs. School buses must pass rigorous safety inspections, such as New York Department of Transportation semi-annual inspection and the M-W bi-monthly service and inspection. This may be the most important question. So far, two failed Proposition 2 have had minimal impact from the “user” perspective. But we have been forced to take “heroic measures” to keep things going as our customers expect. At this point, we have run out of “magic” to pull out of hats. If we pass Prop 2 on May 16, what do we taxpayers get for out $1.7 million? 22 new school buses: A small investment: • M-W’s state aid on new buses is 57+ percent. • Local cost is $735,000 ($33,000 per bus). • No cost in 2006-07 school year. • Note paid over five years, starting in 2007-08. Continued excellent service next year • Daily to-and-from school service. • Field and athletic trips. • Activity buses. Berchtold ends the presentation this way: “We’re not threatening anyone. School districts are always accused of “threatening” voters or “holding children hostage” if we warn of effects of a failed proposition. We are not doing that. However, we feel voters should be told the implications of their decisions. “If Prop 2 passes, the district will buy 22 new, clean buses at $33,000 each; use them for 9-12 years; maintain our level of service. “If Prop 2 is defeated, the district will lease an as yet undetermined number of buses at between $18,000 and $28,000 each; return them at the end of the school year; face service cutbacks. “We don’t know how many buses we may have to lease. It depends on how much service reduction the School Board directs us to accomplish. We do know the cost-per-bus will be very high (due to the liability issue in leasing school buses). Our cost estimates for leasing are based on several actual local bus lease bid results.” Additional information about the district’s budget and transportation propositions can be found on its Web site: (www.mw.k12.ny.us).