Plan A Transportation Bond Proposal

Transcription

1 Plan A Transportation Bond Proposal 1. Why are we needing a bond to support transportation? For several consecutive years the state allocations supporting public school budgets has been experiencing cuts. Even though Luther is not heavily supported by state aide, it is the means by which we are able to budget and manage our cash flow. As you know by now, State Question 766 removed a significant portion of local ad valorem tax for Luther Schools. Most of this loss we believe will be recovered in the state appropriation s formula. The answer is TBD as we see how the State appropriates their budget next year regarding public schools. The rest of the loss in the building fund is gone since that is a straight millage appropriation based on ad valorem values. So what does this all mean? It means we must develop a plan for transporting children in Luther Schools and saving enough in our budget to accommodate this is not the best way to approach this issue. It is a way to manage the process, but the overall functioning of the district would be diminished. A lease purchase option does not look beneficial to me in the budgeting for transportation. It also means that the loss in the building fund revenue will NOT allow us to press on this balance any further to reduce the liabilities in the General Fund where transportation would have to be funded. I propose a plan that buys some time for us until real estate growth, student enrollment, and the overall economic picture has time to make more recovery. I am NOT proposing a stimulus plan as could be assessed with spending in time of lean budgets. It is actually a reasonable approach to meet a priority need with a sound financial management solution. Luther still maintains one of the lowest tax assessed valuations in our area. a. We now have an aged fleet of buses and need to add an additional route to accommodate the student growth we have already experienced. 1

2 b. Maintenance costs have increased as a result of older units, just like our own vehicles. c. We need to actually add another route to our current operations which would mean 12 routes, not the present 10. d. Safety and functionality of our system is in question. 2. Why a bond issue? a. It s a plan to quickly and efficiently remedy a problem by focusing on the solution and not on the problem. b. I would compare this to a car loan that gets paid off in 5 years and goes away. It has a great interest rate attached to the loan because we are a school in good financial condition and has a good credit rating. c. Safety of students is high priority. We have some tough terrain and it impacts the longevity of the life of our fleet. Where some districts could get by with a 10 year life expectancy, Luther probably needs to think more in terms of a 5 to 6 year life expectancy. d. We can get more for the money and it doesn t have a long pay out window. In addition, I am proposing some of the following options within the Bonding Deal package: OPTIONS INCLUDED 1. Vocational agriculture truck 2. Drivers Training car 3. Bus Barn 3. How much will it cost me as a taxpayer? Just a guess based on an actual taxpayer: Because of State Question 766 you probably saw about a 2% increase with no issue. The change with a bond issue as being proposed would probably be about half of that amount for 5 years. Attached is a print- out that has been prepared by 2

3 our School Bond Person. You can do a self - analysis on your property. If you pay $600 in taxes then you will probably see a $10 increase as a result of this issue. This same property owner probably saw about the same increase based off State Question 766. So the worst case scenario for this one taxpayer example would be a $20 increase with both issues added together. In other words, less that $2 per month increase. Needless to say, the net benefit to the students in Luther is a price that is worth the cost as I see it. Key point* We cannot get out of this issue without a cost increase coming from some source of revenue if we want to continue transporting children as we have been accustomed to doing in the past years. The only question is how we address the revenue source? We need to look for revenue, not cuts in my opinion. Luther s budget has been well managed and well maintained. It also has been stretched to a limit. The future is encouraging and I believe that this issue gets us caught up at this point. Student growth this year alone indicates that the pace of growth may be a pattern for the district for the next several years. Student growth assists our budget by increasing revenue from the state on an ADM (Average Daily Membership.) This calculates out through the state formula. Hopefully the state of Oklahoma will be able to better fund the formula so it works better for the schools in general. The Board of Education is asking for your input prior to their action to make certain that the plan for transportation is inclusive of the people that are paying the bills. I am asking for your ballot this evening indicating your approval or disapproval of this Plan. Also, your comments are important to assist us in not overlooking a critical point or concern that should be addressed in the proposal prior to placing it on a ballot. 3

4 PLAN A Purchasing Recommendations: passenger buses for routes $ 480, passenger bus $ 76, passenger buses dedicated to activity trips only with A/C $ 174, Ford Explorer for driver s education $ 27, ¾ Ton pick- up 4-W drive, crew cab for ag program $ 27,000 Total Vehicle Cost $ 784, Roof only building to house buses and serve as a show barn for ag program. (80 X 120 ) Included is a driver s lounge with rest rooms. Electric and plug in s for buses. $ 216,000. KEY POINTS We plan on retaining 4 of the better units for back-up and spares. A feature we do not have at the present and that can often be a very important feature for transportation. By reducing the pressure on equipment costs, it should allow for budgeting for essential routine maintenance on the units as well as having a shelter for the buses to allow for a safer departure for our drivers. Pre-warmed buses are an easier task if we have a roof over the equipment. Drivers should have an area to warm as well. We need a person on site to do routine maintenance items with our fleet on a daily basis. 4

5 Oklahoma City $60.39 Oklahoma County Levies Fiscal Year Putnam City Luther Deer Creek Harrah Jones Edmond Oakdale Millwood Western Heights Mid-Del Crooked Oak Crutcho Bethany

6

7

8 CURRENT BUS FLEET Bus # Mileage Make/Model 1 135, Blue Bird Chevrolet 15 33, Blue Bird International 13 91, Blue Bird Chevrolet (New Motor) 7 55, Blue Bird International 3 85, Blue Bird Vision 6 43, Carpenter International 5 75, Blue Bird International 8 66, Blue Bird International 11 50, Blue Bird International 9 50, International 14 41, Ford Mini Bus 12 29, Blue Bird (Handicapped Bus) 4 38, Blue Bird 10 42, Blue Bird International (current activity bus) 2 26, Blue Bird Chevrolet Pick-up/vans ,412 Ford F ,729 Ford F ,674 Ford F ,168 Chevrolet Van Yellow = Units to be sold Blue = Units kept for spares Red = Units to remain on routes and current use Black = Units dedicated for specific usage 7