|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 15, 2008 15:40:54 GMT -5
What if Laidlaw, with or without consultation from the SD, had enough padding in the BB bus budget to be able to promise no additional costs for AME? Does anyone honestly believe the costs are magically the same? I'd have more faith if they actually came out with an actual number, such as AME being 2.7% higher than BB, or 0.4% lower than BB. To say they are going to be able to keep the exact same budget means they either overbudgeted for BB and don't want to make the SD look bad with higher AME costs, or they are massaging the routes to fit the agenda. This happens all the time in business. If I sign up a client to a certain deal based on my expected costs and perceived profit margin, and then the client adds an unexpected request for an additional service at the last minute, I might decide not to bump up the price. Does that mean the additional service he requested costs nothing to me? Not at all. It just means I want the client to feel good and I know I probably have enough wiggle room to still make money on the deal. For some of us, the common sense fact that BB is closer to the population center of the district than AME should mean that the transportation costs are higher for AME, and will be even more so in the future. All we are asking for is some data that shows the real comparison. Laidlaw's promise to not charge more means nothing, and it has nothing to do with them "lying," but rather the realities of business contracts. What would be the point of this? BB is gone. Do you want cost comparisons for other sites that MV isn't going to be built on? There were multiple factors that lead to the site and and boundaries. Some are mpre quantifiable than others. I don't think that they can provide an XLS that shows one site or boundaries being the best, based on some formula.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 15:42:57 GMT -5
What if Laidlaw, with or without consultation from the SD, had enough padding in the BB bus budget to be able to promise no additional costs for AME? Does anyone honestly believe the costs are magically the same? I'd have more faith if they actually came out with an actual number, such as AME being 2.7% higher than BB, or 0.4% lower than BB. To say they are going to be able to keep the exact same budget means they either overbudgeted for BB and don't want to make the SD look bad with higher AME costs, or they are massaging the routes to fit the agenda. This happens all the time in business. If I sign up a client to a certain deal based on my expected costs and perceived profit margin, and then the client adds an unexpected request for an additional service at the last minute, I might decide not to bump up the price. Does that mean the additional service he requested costs nothing to me? Not at all. It just means I want the client to feel good and I know I probably have enough wiggle room to still make money on the deal. For some of us, the common sense fact that BB is closer to the population center of the district than AME should mean that the transportation costs are higher for AME, and will be even more so in the future. All we are asking for is some data that shows the real comparison. Laidlaw's promise to not charge more means nothing, and it has nothing to do with them "lying," but rather the realities of business contracts. What would be the point of this? BB is gone. Do you want cost comparisons for other sites that MV isn't going to be built on? There were multiple factors that lead to the site and and boundaries. Some are mpre quantifiable than others. I don't think that they can provide an XLS that shows one site or boundaries being the best, based on some formula. The point is to have real cost data to work with in order to do future boundary changes which ARE going to happen. It's inevitable. Without any such data no one knows if D204 is getting a 'good deal' or not. We're over the proverbial barrel.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 15, 2008 16:16:31 GMT -5
What if Laidlaw, with or without consultation from the SD, had enough padding in the BB bus budget to be able to promise no additional costs for AME? Does anyone honestly believe the costs are magically the same? I'd have more faith if they actually came out with an actual number, such as AME being 2.7% higher than BB, or 0.4% lower than BB. To say they are going to be able to keep the exact same budget means they either overbudgeted for BB and don't want to make the SD look bad with higher AME costs, or they are massaging the routes to fit the agenda. This happens all the time in business. If I sign up a client to a certain deal based on my expected costs and perceived profit margin, and then the client adds an unexpected request for an additional service at the last minute, I might decide not to bump up the price. Does that mean the additional service he requested costs nothing to me? Not at all. It just means I want the client to feel good and I know I probably have enough wiggle room to still make money on the deal. For some of us, the common sense fact that BB is closer to the population center of the district than AME should mean that the transportation costs are higher for AME, and will be even more so in the future. All we are asking for is some data that shows the real comparison. Laidlaw's promise to not charge more means nothing, and it has nothing to do with them "lying," but rather the realities of business contracts. What would be the point of this? BB is gone. Do you want cost comparisons for other sites that MV isn't going to be built on? There were multiple factors that lead to the site and and boundaries. Some are mpre quantifiable than others. I don't think that they can provide an XLS that shows one site or boundaries being the best, based on some formula. Because this has the underpinnings of being part of a campaign platform for possible SB members.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 15, 2008 16:38:50 GMT -5
The agenda of re-optimizing all of the ES, MS and HS boundaries to be the quickest/cheapest possible would be a good fiscal platform to run on. That one would be hard to beat. arch, on this specific topic of re-optimizing boundaries on quickest/cheapest.... This completely ignores the criteria of minimizing splits. There is more to the boundary optimization than merely cheapest/quickest, or sweeping a radius on a map.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 15, 2008 16:51:38 GMT -5
For some of us, the common sense fact that BB is closer to the population center of the district than AME should mean that the transportation costs are higher for AME, and will be even more so in the future. All we are asking for is some data that shows the real comparison. . Here is my common sense approach (and as players says, NOBODY has shown any facts to the contrary) that transportation costs are equivalent. Compared to BB boundaries, MV at AME has shorter commutes for 4 ES attendance areas, and longer for 3. Every other area is a wash. I am with several other posters here....unless somebody (a SB candidate?) is going to show some facts to support the claim, enough with saying BB site would have saved x % on transportation.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 15, 2008 17:01:41 GMT -5
The agenda of re-optimizing all of the ES, MS and HS boundaries to be the quickest/cheapest possible would be a good fiscal platform to run on. That one would be hard to beat. arch, on this specific topic of re-optimizing boundaries on quickest/cheapest.... This completely ignores the criteria of minimizing splits. There is more to the boundary optimization than merely cheapest/quickest, or sweeping a radius on a map. Agreed gatordog. Transportation costs were just one of the criteria used for boundaries. BB is dead, so no sense comparing AME to BB. We do have some sort of savings now with the three HS's vs. only 2 HS's. But to change boundaries based only on distance and perceived transportation issues is wrong IMO. This is why I am very doubtful of anyone who comes in and wants to change things immediately. The routes won't even have been run and new contracts even negotiated. It just smells of someone with a current 8th grader who wants to rework things so their child can go to a different school. Things take time to work. Perhaps in a few years, things need to be re-examined and tweaks made. Populations may be different, Laidlaw may come back much higher, etc. That is the time to re-evaluate. But to come in and want to change something that hasn't even had a chance to work yet smacks of something personal IMO. Give these kids a break. Give the poor 7-8th graders some stability. Give the current boundaries a chance to work.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 17:17:25 GMT -5
The agenda of re-optimizing all of the ES, MS and HS boundaries to be the quickest/cheapest possible would be a good fiscal platform to run on. That one would be hard to beat. arch, on this specific topic of re-optimizing boundaries on quickest/cheapest.... This completely ignores the criteria of minimizing splits. There is more to the boundary optimization than merely cheapest/quickest, or sweeping a radius on a map. Some of the 'splits' are caused by less than optimal ES/MS boundaries in the first place. I think they can be cleaned up better from the start. It would be a disservice to not re-look at these and it would be an even greater shame if they were not re-examined due to political reasonings.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 18:44:07 GMT -5
What if Laidlaw, with or without consultation from the SD, had enough padding in the BB bus budget to be able to promise no additional costs for AME? Does anyone honestly believe the costs are magically the same? I'd have more faith if they actually came out with an actual number, such as AME being 2.7% higher than BB, or 0.4% lower than BB. To say they are going to be able to keep the exact same budget means they either overbudgeted for BB and don't want to make the SD look bad with higher AME costs, or they are massaging the routes to fit the agenda. This happens all the time in business. If I sign up a client to a certain deal based on my expected costs and perceived profit margin, and then the client adds an unexpected request for an additional service at the last minute, I might decide not to bump up the price. Does that mean the additional service he requested costs nothing to me? Not at all. It just means I want the client to feel good and I know I probably have enough wiggle room to still make money on the deal. For some of us, the common sense fact that BB is closer to the population center of the district than AME should mean that the transportation costs are higher for AME, and will be even more so in the future. All we are asking for is some data that shows the real comparison. Laidlaw's promise to not charge more means nothing, and it has nothing to do with them "lying," but rather the realities of business contracts. I mostly agree with you on why the costs are equal - there is no magic about that, it is about business negotiation. I am in the high-tech industry and many of my customers budget for a particular configuration prior to the sale, and then change the configuration, and request us to keep the price the same. Within reason, we oblige - managing margins in a different way to help the customer, as it is difficult for them to go to the well again for more money. So regardless of what the true cost to Laidlaw was for the change in site between AME and BB, I would not be surprised if they called it a wash and quoted the original cost. So what it costs the district is the same, even though the internal costs for Laidlaw may be different. So I think the whole question of is AME 0.4% less or 2.7% more is something that cannot be answered by the SB, but only by Laidlaw, as what we are talking about is Laidlaw's internal cost structure. Both look the same from the District's point of view. That being said, Laidlaw has the mileage details, which the SB does not need to know for costing - their concern is the cost in this situation, and I will continue to assert that the mileage is irrelevant as long as Laidlaw sticks to their word. Future years are unknown for either location, as are fuel costs, demographics, etc, for both BB and AME, and the contracts will need to be looked at then. I suppose someone can request Laidlaw to expose their cost model and margin structure to make people feel better - I can tell you that where I work, in a publicly traded company, that is considered confidential and proprietary information. I wouldn't hold my breath that Laidlaw is going to be forthcoming. Thats is not covered by FOIPA. Your speculation that BB costs were padded initially is original - haven't heard anyone say that before. That would be a question for BB supporters - why did no one make any calls for the School Board to "prove" that they got the best transportation deal from Laidlaw for BB during contract negotiations, when BB seemed to be the final site? It suddenly seems to be critical when AME came into the picture. So BB transportation costs were accepted without question, but AME costs are a sure sign of fiscal irresponsibility and the raw costs have to be made public? Whats good for the goose isn't good for the gander? I support transparency of all SB transactions completely. This information should be open. However, I jumped into this thread to point out that the 9% savings of BB compared to AME is hogwash, and I believe I have accomplished that. Should we continue to monitor AME transportation costs? Absolutely. Anyway, as several have pointed out - this is all moot. BB is out of the picture. And I completely agree that transportation costs are only one component for a boundary decision. I will be deeply suspicious of candidates who lead their campaign with promises of boundary changes, especially on fiscal grounds. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 18:57:00 GMT -5
Player,
Many here seem to be back on the defensive that this is about going back to BB. For me, this subject is not. It's about making sure the district is using the best possible boundaries to keep transportation at the best price it can possibly be. Unoptimized routes and originations/destinations will never get you there.
The SB and the Administration opened up the 'fiscal responsibility' and 'affordability' door. Now it seems that some want to shut it. Pity.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 19:03:14 GMT -5
The point is to have real cost data to work with in order to do future boundary changes which ARE going to happen. It's inevitable. Without any such data no one knows if D204 is getting a 'good deal' or not. We're over the proverbial barrel. So let me ask this: How do you know that the District is getting a "good deal" from Sodhexo for school lunch? Are we over the proverbial barrel there as well? Why aren't there demands for the "real cost data" for food service? And what are you planning to do with this? Why are these alleged issues of having cost data for transportation or food service critical to AME but not even mentioned for BB? Amazing! Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 19:09:16 GMT -5
The point is to have real cost data to work with in order to do future boundary changes which ARE going to happen. It's inevitable. Without any such data no one knows if D204 is getting a 'good deal' or not. We're over the proverbial barrel. So let me ask this: How do you know that the District is getting a "good deal" from Sodhexo for school lunch? Are we over the proverbial barrel there as well? Why aren't there demands for the "real cost data" for food service? And what are you planning to do with this? Why are these alleged issues of having cost data for transportation or food service critical to AME but not even mentioned for BB? Amazing! Cheers. The public is getting an aweful deal for it's $2 and change for the 'food' their kids get at the ES level. The quality downright sucks and economies of scale should have kicked in but that money ends up someplace while the kids get sub-par quality 'food'.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 19:09:35 GMT -5
The SB and the Administration opened up the 'fiscal responsibility' and 'affordability' door. Now it seems that some want to shut it. Pity. If challenging fiscal responsibility and affordability is the intent, starting with a widely disseminated falsehood, claiming that the District sacrificed 9% of savings by going to AME is not a sound way to gain credibility. Seems to me that the only door that some want to shut is having to back up that false claim with data. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 15, 2008 19:11:41 GMT -5
. I will be deeply suspicious of candidates who lead their campaign with promises of boundary changes, especially on fiscal grounds. . I believe this is a very good summary statement. This is a take-home point for us voters to remember. And to remind our fellow voters.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 19:12:39 GMT -5
So let me ask this: How do you know that the District is getting a "good deal" from Sodhexo for school lunch? Are we over the proverbial barrel there as well? Why aren't there demands for the "real cost data" for food service? And what are you planning to do with this? Why are these alleged issues of having cost data for transportation or food service critical to AME but not even mentioned for BB? Amazing! Cheers. The public is getting an aweful deal for it's $2 and change for the 'food' their kids get at the ES level. The quality downright sucks and economies of scale should have kicked in but that money ends up someplace while the kids get sub-par quality 'food'. Agreed. I can't stand Sodhexo food and try to make sure my kids don't eat it. My question is why that contract isn't a focal point of conversation like AME transportation is, as regardless of the quality of the food, the claim is that the District doesn't know how to negotiate a contract in a financially sound fashion.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 19:12:49 GMT -5
The SB and the Administration opened up the 'fiscal responsibility' and 'affordability' door. Now it seems that some want to shut it. Pity. If challenging fiscal responsibility and affordability is the intent, starting with a widely disseminated falsehood, claiming that the District sacrificed 9% of savings by going to AME is not a sound way to gain credibility. Seems to me that the only door that some want to shut is having to back up that false claim with data. Cheers. I too wish some would stop stretching that. It was a pre-3rd hs vs post 3rd hs@bb savings only. Lifting that and trying to make it fit in whole anyplace else is like trying to take the square peg and force it through the round hole. There may be some validity to some of what's said, but in whole, it's irrelevant garbage.
|
|