Leo, I'm just sorry that you were unsuccesful in your bid to be on the school board. You ask good and legitimate questions that deserve answers. I'm in total agreement about your view of replacing at least two of our elementaries with a new building. As I've stated my opinion before and want to make crystal clear again...a new elementary in excess of 500 students can be a better learning environment than that of a smaller school, IF we keep class size manageable for the teachers.

I'm all for progress that makes sense. The current proposed program does not!

Blue, that it "is going to cost more" to build than to renovate is a fallacy. We don't even know what the buildings are worth as they stand. We can build and possibly reduce daily operating costs while improving education at the same time.

I have relatives in most of the schools in the county. Our buildings are not "falling down" except for the Buildings and Grounds Shop. Our buildings, as they sit, are neither unsafe or unsecure,however, security can be improved simply by using existing locks. The story that our schools need massive security improvements is just that, a "story" told to the masses to justify spending money in a way that does not improve the education situation. We cannot, and will never, have totally secure schools. Those do not exist. Anyone with intent to do harm will do harm and there is nothing we can do about it.

The statement that "this is about the children" is a dodge that has been used to justify everything from genocide to WW II. Adolf Hitler gave that same "reason" to the Germans to justify going to war in his attempt to dominate Europe. It is "about" everybody, the students, the teachers, the administrators, every other employee, every taxpayer, and every resident of the county, both now and for decades to come. What we decide in this issue not only "fixes" our buildings, but determines how much future taxpayers will pay to operate our education system and how effective that system will educate future students.

Blue, I am sorry if my post sounded like a flame on you, but the argument that the current building program is somehow going to make our buildings safer is nothing more than a "scare" tactic being used to promote the project. All of the exterior doors can currently be locked and a $50 doorbell, just like the one in most houses, can be used to inform office staff that someone wishes entry. Doors are left unlocked intentionally for convenience, period. Then, like last spring, when someone enters the building, someone screams "we need more security!" Poppycock, I say, we need to use the locks that already bought, paid for, and right there on the door.

Another heaping load of "poppycock" is the fallacy that we need cameras to prevent bullets from striking our buildings as they did Van Buren last year. Someone said that they noticed a van on the road, however, the incident took place just before deer season. How many cameras do you need to cover every direction at every angle focused at every possible distance at a resolution where you could identify where a shot that you do not know where it came from can be observed, played back, and the point of origin identified? Not that that would prevent the first shot from striking, but if you find a cost effective solution, I'm sure that the U. S. Government is interested in buying it.

People need to be a bit more skeptical of what people are telling them to further their own agenda. That is why I give you the references and identify who I am quoting, so you can verify what I'm saying.I don't want you to take my word, I give you a way to prove what I say.

http://www.smarthome.com/51921.html

http://www.smarthome.com/5191.html

http://www.smarthome.com/70402.html

Electric door Strike.......$79

16v Power Supply...........$14

Infrared camera...........$200

Add another ..............$200 for 2-way audio and you have a total of $493

Round that up to say $700 per door for wire and a push button, have our maintenance staff wire them in and you have it, at $700 a controlled door. And there only has to be one per school.

Chris, please re-read what you cut and pasted into your e-mail. I stated that "I haven't even had a chance to look into, the bus garage." Then I asked two questions. Then I made a statement that I haven't looked into the options. What did I state that was, as you put it, "untrue"?

I appreciate the time and effort that you put into this e-mail.

From what you have written here, the bus garage appears to be a worthwhile investment, but I, personally, knew that already. I worked fleet maintenance for years and the questions that I asked on the blog were asked several times in board meetings. Every time, the facts and figures indicated exactly what your e-mail boils down to, that it is better to do it yourself than to pay others to do it for you. I had a letter when I worked for a small company in NC called Southern Imports that I would show the owners every time they questioned the truck maintenance operation or owning their own trucks, it read a lot like this and I updated it when prices changed..........lol.

Believe me, I do understand. Buses, like trucks, have got to roll. Buses, on the other hand, carry a cargo that is more valuable than anything that is ever put on a truck. I sit here and listen to the buses almost every day. I hear when they call for help.

The reason that I mentioned it at all and one of the reasons I am working on the remonstrance is that we need a new facility. It needs to get back into the plan. With the facts and figures that you have given me and the lower cost of $800,000, instead of $4.2 million, the public can easily see the cost-effectiveness. We could use CPF money to build it, but we are going to come up short $200,000, according to Dr. Schroeder, somewhere in the CPF, Bus Replacement fund, and/or the Transportation fund for the next few years unless the legislation changes that situation. We could "squeeze" the CPF, but that puts us back to delaying maintenance of the buildings. That is how we got into the situation as it stands now and I would rather not see it happen again.

On the subject of the Corps, I once had to tell my Battalion CO that 90% of the vehicles in my company should be on dead-line. He told me that I HAD BETTER be able to prove it. I did and the Maintenance Officer and Company Commander were both relieved. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I can be wrong, but mostly only when using the wrong facts. I tell the truth as it is known to me, but I also keep an open mind to new facts.

Sincerely,

Leo L. Southworth

There are many ideas on ways to improve the project. Our corporation has many needs. We need to determine just what the highest priority needs are and solve as many as we can within the limitations of our budget.

The current plan simply doesn't do the job. While it does solve some problems, it contains far too much expenditure for items which the logical "need" for cannot be seen from the facts presented or that the solution in the plan is not the most cost-effective solution that is apparent.

I do not know how, but people still fail to realize that everything is connected. How many buildings we operate affects how many people we need to operate them. Where they are located affects how many miles our buses have to travel. Whether we blacktop the parking lot or leave it gravel is the difference between spending the money on asphalt or on an additional classroom.

We have limitations. We have laws that must be obeyed. We have a certain amount of money we can spend without affecting the tax rate and we have a higher limit as to how much debt the corporation could possibly incur. We have both an operating budget and a maintenance budget to consider and keep our expenditures within. We have a defined purpose for the corporation, that being education, that all of our assets, buildings, budgets, people, and credit, etc., should be focused upon. If the asset has little or no affect directly upon the goal of education, then the goal of that asset should be to be as cost-effective as possible so that the savings can be applied to another asset that directly affects education. I do not see that condition in the current plan. I see money ear-marked for items that have little to do with education and that are not cost-effective solutions taking money from the "needs" of other of our assets and education.

Several times during the public meetings, the question of who gets what when was raised. I found that the question was absurd then and it is still today. You always address the greatest need first. But that need must be provable; there must be a requirement for it to be a "need" as opposed to a "desire".

Let's spend our money wisely instead of just spending it. Education is just too important to waste even our few dollars to little effect. We can improve education for the future, but only to a small degree with the current plan. We can have a greater and longer-lasting effect doing something different.

Jenny Moore,

This is in response to your comment that the bus garage needs to be south of I-70. Have you weighed the pros and cons of that? I will go a little bit in depth as to why we would perfer to stay north of I-70. The first reason is that how many accidents would occur at I-70 every year with busses and other vehicles, because how many times do people get cut off by a semi pulling out of the truck stops? Right now we have a total of 3 busses coming through that area. If we was to move south of I-70 we would have 45 busses coming through that area. That is not very good odds.

The other issue with moving down there is fuel consumption. We currently have 12 busses that park on the bus garage lot due to the drivers not having the space at their homes to keep their busses. All 12 of those drivers either drive north of brazil or right there in brazil. How much more money would it cost the corporation in fuel for those busses to drive from south of I-70 to start their routes.

If you figure there is a 12 mile difference between even I-70 and where the garage is now that is right around 2 gallons of consumption per trip out of the garage and another 2 back into the garage. That is 4 gallons for just a morning route, then you have the evening route aswell so there is 8 gallons. Take that times the amount of busses that park at the garage and that is roughly 96 gallons of fuel extra per day, that would be 480 gallons a week and 2160 gallons per month. So it would cost the corporation $7992 extra per month to move south of I-70. That would be about $63936 per year extra on fuel. That does not take into account either the extra miles on the busses and them having to be serviced at least once if not two times extra per year at $110 per service per bus. That would be about $2600 extra just for services also per year.

Right now the drivers we have that drive the Clay City routes park their busses at their houses and there is a fuel pump at Clay City High School for them all to fill up. We currently have 57 route busses traveling daily in clay county, out of those 57, 12 of them are Clay City routes. So would it be more beneficial and cost efficent to have 45 busses travel south of I-70 on a regular basis or have 12 busses travel north of I-70 to have repairs done to their busses?

McVaych:

I appreciate your response but I guess I have more questions than answers...

Do all the bus drivers who park their buses at their house have routes that are adjacent to their house? If so, your theory makes sense but if they don't, then they are using corporation fuel to get to and from work as well. Might be better to house ALL buses at a centrally located garage and have lot large enough so that drivers can park there while they are at work. That way also if a driver were to be sick, the bus wouldn't have to be retrieved by a sub driver. Would be good to have these numbers and mileages as well in order to consider other options. To date I only see the cost of duplicating facilities at either end of the county as we've done in past so many times. Is there a possibility of a fueling station at northern most school to minimize travel back to the garage just to fuel up? That would give three total to match the elongated length of the county if one was in middle of county at a garage.

Ten years ago I would agree with you about the 42/59/70 intersection but now with all the lights, it isn't nearly as harrowing to go through that intersection. My husband and I do it on a daily basis. Again would like to see accident numbers compared to before the flashing light at 42/59 was installed compared to monthly or yearly numbers now.

The other point is that I believe there is a rudimentary facility available down in that area that could be possibly modified for a good deal less costly than building on same site in town. The way real estate is now, it is much less expensive to buy existing structure and remodel than to build new due to poor market. It would also eliminate down time when there might be no garage during building process IF building site is same.

There is another option the corporation has as well. Some other schools have the drivers own/lease their own buses instead of them being owned by the corporation. We might want to look into how this is working in other counties.

I agree that your fuel consumption arguments have merit but there are a few other options we have with regard to handling some of the bus issues may need to be looked at from a different stand point as well in theses changing times.

Even law enforcement agencies are re thinking the vehicle use policies concerning use out of work hours. Maybe it's something we need to look at with school buses as well??? Not saying that any of these are instantly a better idea, just that so many details need to be considered in order to be as thrifty as possible.

Basically, to come up with a "better" transportation plan would take a lot of time and you might spend a lot of time getting nowhere. Frank Misner is also former military, Air Force, retiree, I think. I won't say that you could not find something that he overlooked, but, in his area of responsibility and having sat down with him to discuss various things one afternoon, he seems to be very through.

Most of the people that I have talked to in the corporation are very good at their area of responsibility on a day-to-day basis. My "disagreement" with the corporation's plan is where it is taking us educationally, where it will lead the corporation in the future, and what it costs, both monetarily and educationally, to get there. Day to day operations in maintenance appear to be in good shape, education needs some work. On an annual basis, maintenance of buildings needs work, mostly due to lack of money. Vehicle maintenance is fine. Transportation is getting into a budget crunch due to fuel costs. Overall budget is getting critical due to General Fund problems that are causing CPF problems.

Long-range, the only actual plan that I see working is the bus replacement plan, the ten-year maintenance is disregarded on a yearly basis to support daily operations, there is no long-range building replacement plan, and, while the corporation has set goals educationally, I see very little "planning" as to how to accomplish them due to the fact that everything is interrelated but money is spent with, in my opinion, little regard to cost-effectiveness.

Jenny,

As of right now all the drivers that keep their busses at their houses live within a 5 mile range of where their bus routes start. We only have about 5 to 6 that have to drive 10 miles from home to start their routes, but once again if you move south of I-70 then they would be more around 22 miles from the start of their routes. Then if you house ALL the busses at a centrally located bus garage then you would have 45 busses traveling on average an extra 12 to 25 miles to start their routes. How much would that cost the corporation? It would cost them $319,680 on the low end and $666,000 on the high end.

As for when a driver is sick, that is why we house 11 spare busses here at the bus garage. They are here either for drivers that are sick or for trips that a driver cannot make and we have to call a sub in to take the trip. I can personnaly state my experience with the I-70 area when the garage has to take a bus through that area me and the mechanics here get cut off by semi's pulling out of the truck stops 3 out of 4 times we go through there. A bus is alot harder to get stoped then a passanger car, it takes a longer distance and when a truck pulls out 50 yards in front of you it is extremly hard to get the bus slowed down enough to keep from hitting them.

To answer your question Leo, yes there is still a fuel pump in Clay City for those drivers to fill up where they do not have to come up to the garage to fill up.

Could someone tell me why the military is better equipped to run a school than the average Joe????

McVaych: You make some real valid points. I am guessing you work in that area as you have all the numbers. Thank goodness for this blog and hope more are reading it than are responding as puts out some real valuable information. It really sounds like finger is on the pulse of 99% if not almost all transportation cost issues. Need to make sure however that those in south end are on board with this as well as look at the possibility of driver lease arrangement for its viability.

I am not quite sure what kd323 is getting at? Brazil needs TO BE paid for fire protection and something about a pole barn? I would think at very least it would have to have a heated section in order to work efficiently in dead of winter and would need either a lift or pit to work on/inspect undercarriage. I am not that familiar with vehicle maintenance but would want at least that if I were working on them full time. Unheated pole barn okay for weekend mechanic but not for every day all year. Also what difference would a bus garage be than a school that isn't within city limits? The Brazil Fire company doesn't service schools in the county, does it? Comments are lost on me as I don't understand what you are saying.

Looks like in this day and age that fuel costs drive much of the decision about transportation cost....Leads me to dangerous ground however in going back to the cost involved to get various teams, band, etc transported. Can we get a figure on how much it costs the corporation to move the teams around? I truly feel that the choice of academics over extracurricular activities is going to eventually have to be made as with rising fuel costs they are going to take an even bigger bite out of budget than previously. Hard thing to hear but when just getting the kids to school costs so much more, what other option do we have? Anyone got any ideas? Just this AM on radio [NPR] there was a report that explained how college sports is changing due to fuel prices. Less people on a squad as public transportation cheaper than chartering an entire bus for a team...Then there is issue of luggage and team equipment if public transportation is chosen. Not an exact parallel to high school sports and field trips but demonstrates that this is not just something that public schools are having to deal with. If we are already spending more on transporting teams, there is already less left for academics so we can't be maintaining the same academics on like amount of money than we were a year ago even unless we are borrowing to stay at same level.

Maybe a school board member reading this can reply? What is their plan??? If no member is reading, maybe one of us should ask directly??

I'm sure that this is a huge issue with them as well. No matter what they decide, someone is going to be unhappy.

As to the building itself, my estimate from US Steel for a 4 bay building that would accommodate the 4 of the largest buses made by Bluebird with ten foot of working room between them and fifteen foot, split in front of and behind, Insulated, with doors and windows came to $60,000 dollars This did not include footers, floor, wiring, heating, or anything else. When you take that into account, plus erection of the building and the labor cost, $800,000 sounds reasonable.

Leo:

Agreed that EC activities are dear to so many. I would hate to see them go as well as my own kids participate, but I can see that at some point, with our poor economy and high overhead. that may be the choice that has to be made eventually so that academics aren't forfeited more than they are now. Fuel cost to transport a team is only a fraction of EC costs. Besides extra wear on vehicles, there is driver cost, coach cost, [multiple coaches for many of the activities], uniforms, equipment etc etc.

I would just not want to see us keeping EC's by letting our academics decline. I'm afraid to some extent that is happening already in dribs and drabs.

FlyinLion~Leo

In addition... I really hate to be rude but "this is for the kids" is in no way a cop out... And where you got that explantion from genocide to WWII is beyond me... and it was really stupid and that is probably the nicest thing I can say about that.. Also still trying to be nice and mature about this but some of the things you put on here in response are ridiculous and maybe a little bit made up.