Longtime local provider will have to compete for continued business
By Jennifer Eisenbart
Staff Writer
In the interests of guaranteeing the Burlington Area School District the best value for its money Monday night, BASD Buildings, Grounds and Transportation Committee member Phil Ketterhagen had a simple request.
After listening to just a few minutes of the initial presentation of comparative numbers from BASD Business Administrator Ruth Schenning – numbers that were difficult to compare because of what various districts provided – Ketterhagen made a motion.
“This comparison has so much holes in it,” said Ketterhagen in regards to the Thomas Bus Company contract. He then moved to non-renewal of the contract and send it out to bid.
While Committee Chairman Jim Bousman asked Ketterhagen to reconsider the motion, which he temporarily withdrew, the motion ended up standing later in the meeting, and by a narrow 3-2 margin, the contract with Thomas was not renewed.
The vote marked a month’s worth of uncertainty with the busing contract. Initially, recommendations from staff were to accept the contract from Thomas – which has served the community for 18 years and didn’t ask for a price increase this year – and extend the contract from three to five years to allow the company more security in negotiating loans for new equipment.
However, when the contract came before the committee in April, it was defeated by a one-vote margin and sent back for more research.
The problem the district is finding, judging by the presentation of numbers to the committee Monday night, is comparing apples to apples.
Schenning had compiled numbers from various districts, but those numbers were incomplete. Some districts did not quote total cost, while others didn’t include cost of fuel. Still others did not break down routes to include single, double or triple routes.
The end result was a failed attempt to put the numbers on even footing that had everyone apparently confused.
“We’re doing a lot of speculation here,” Ketterhagen said. He then added that either the district felt 18 years of non-bidding was OK, or that the process was flawed and needed to be bid.
“Then we’ll know whether we have the best deal,” Ketterhagen said.
Whether that process would be fair to Thomas Bus Company, though, was a question raised. BASD School Board President David Thompson asked about collateral damage, at which point Ketterhagen said, “Collateral damage doesn’t figure into this.”
Two Thomas Bus Company officials were on hand: owner Lysbeth Hintz and Robert Klein, the company’s vice president.
While the two didn’t offer much in terms of clarification of the numbers situation – both admitted they couldn’t – they did present a page of comparisons to Waterford and Union Grove.
The company provides service to seven public and four parochial schools, and the district covers 100.2 square miles, compared to 86.9 square miles for Waterford and 82.9 for Union Grove.
In BASD, 33.3 percent of students transported live more than five miles from the schools, compared to 22.5 percent in Waterford and 25.2 in Union Grove.
In addition to the numbers, the sheet stated, “Our buses are always clean and safe, inside and outside. Whenever body work is necessary due to rust, we don’t just cover up the rust, but actually replace the bad panels to make sure the bus is structurally sound at all times.
“Our state inspection records are flawless and have been for years.”
Other intangibles are bus drivers who have driven for the company for a number of years – in most cases, the sheet claimed, 15-plus years. That kind of familiarity leads to increased awareness of any problems and allows the district to deal with them more quickly.
The bus company also allows the district to purchase gasoline and fuel below the going rate, has trained drivers to handle buses if needed, and will add extra buses or change schedules (in many cases to accommodate athletic events) with no hesitation.
The added length of the contract, the sheet said, is simply because banks like the security of a five-year contract because of the cost of a new bus (which the sheet quoted at about $83,000 at last purchase).
When asked if a non-renewal could cause the company issues, both Hintz and Klein admitted there could be problems.
Bousman pointed out that district policy is to bid anything costing more than $10,000. With the bus contract at more than $1 million, the first priority, he said, had to be whether the district should ignore this policy.
The vote worked out to Ketterhagen and citizen representatives Norma Miller and Bob Lemken voting not to renew, and Bousman and Campbell voting against the measure.
-
-
-
-
-
it is always good to get a second opinion, butt the real issue is service. These ,if not all the drivers for the bus company are local people. They know the kids and hauling school kids is no easy task. Maybe Ketterhagen should ride a week not just 1 route to see what these drivers put up with. They build a respect with the kids and watch out for them, not just yell at them to sit down and shut up.Oh yeah, make it a grade school route that is long where the kids keep getting fussy. The back bone of any local buisness is the local people within, not the owner and managers . Dont raise costs at a whim of a person or persons, trying to act smart or run the show.
No responsible business owner would invest in dozens of school busses, buildings for maintenance and land to support a school bus business. The investment is in the millions. They would not make this investment for a 3 year contract, especially with 2 board members that are at an intellectual level that is questionable. It would be suicide. The present owners are very professional They have always provided superior service at a low cost. Putting the bus service on the bidding table is absurd, and it is threatening the continuance of quality transportation services. It,s time to say no to this We Vote organization before they destroy our school district.
On the other hand no responsible business owner would just give out contracts, they would have them bid on by multiple companies. I see nothing wrong with the move, Thomas will probably get it back anyways but why not be sure they are in line with the market?
That being said I hope Thomas does retain the contract. When I was a kid I remember just as they said: quality buses, clean, highly maintained equipment. I did notice that from going to different schools.
When a business that provides a service to a municipality, like our school district, has to renew their contract for services, you negotiate a contract. The school boards responsibility is to compare bus services in other districts and determine if our bus service is in line with the others. After a comparison cost has been established, they sit down and negotiate a new contract. The last thing that a district should do is to submit the service for bid. Thomas bus service has invested millions of dollars to provide quality service to our community. To simply let that contract out for bid is absurd. It shows a lack of responsibility of the School Board members and high level of laziness.
I just hope that they also put into consideration that our kids know and trust our current drivers. My kids have used the service since starting school, they are now 19 & 16. They have never had a complaint about a driver. Neither has ever been in an accident or seen anything done wrong. The drivers are friendly and wave to me each day. These are quality drivers who are local and work for a local business. After all the screaming about bringing jobs in, this move could cost us to lose more jobs and another business. You can’t expect a company to stay in a city that will not use their services. Please stop destroying everything good for our children! Haven’t you cut enough from our kids? I am glad my youngest only has 2 years left, by then they will probably have cut everything except the 3R’s! They don’t seem to care about how they are dumbing down our kids as long as they can keep making cuts and maybe getting a little kickback to boot.
Thomas Bus retains it’s contract as the “preferred provider”.
Thomas Bus Service got a reprieve. Their contract will be reviewed and approved. 2 Board members suggested that instead of sitting down with the Thomas Bus management and discussing the contract, The board should just allow other companies to bid on the Burlington contract. Who in their right mind would submit a bid to provide bus service for Burlington with Board members like this. It would be insane. The news this week has most certainly raised eyebrows at the Bank that supports the bus company. They must feel as insecure as Thomas Bus does. The conduct of these 2 Board members was totally inappropriate, and it reminded us once again that they are not quallified to serve our Community. How much more are we going to have to indure? Isn’t enough enough? It’s time to recall these 2 and show them the door.
Edna obviously you’ve never worked in the business world. What company (in this case the BASD) would just approve a $2.1 million contact that has had no competition for 18 years? That’s a terrible business practice to not at least obtain bids from few competitors. Case in point, the BASD was able to obtain a 0% increase from Humana on staff medical premiums. The original Humana proposal was for a 12.98% premium increase. This savings in staff medical premiums would not have been possible without a competitive bidding situation in place. Therefore, why would the same business practice not be used when negotiating the current busing contract?
If you think Thomas Bus Company was ever in “serious” jeopardy of losing the contract then you are totally uninformed. The goal of the two board members that you reference was to determine if the Thomas contract offer was fair not only to the bus company but also to the teachers, students and taxpayers in the school district. The only way you can accurately do this is by obtaining bids from competitors. Then the board could make an apples-to-aples comparison of the offers. I for one am glad that we have two board members that are actually trying to make informed decisions with the taxpayers money.
Hello Eric, I have been business for 43 years. I own the largest business of its kind in Illinois and one of the largest in the nation. I know first hand what can happen when a service business is threatened. When a company invests millions in its community so as to provede exceptional service, it deserves to be able to negotiate. To avoid negotiatioins and simply sublmitting the contract for bid is reckless. First of all, bus servioces do not have hundreds oof excess busses laying around. It would be doubtful if anyone would bid on such a contract. Burlington could loose bus service all together.
Eric,
Common sense, which you obviously have, doesn’t
apply to the haters. They have no clue how an organization or business should be run. They just view it as the bottomless money pot. Like I said earlier, I am glad Thomas Bus got the contract but why on earth it is a bad idea to request multiple bids is preposterous. To just give out contracts to the same people every year almost sounds shady anyways.
Edna – Explain to me how “The conduct of these 2 Board members was totally inappropriate…” Really? By wanting to potentially save the district/taxpayers MONEY with competitive bids…THAT is inappropriate?? Unreal.