HARRISBURG — The state auditor general is criticizing several local school districts’ spending practices while calling for a state law to require competitive bidding on student transportation contracts.
“I want to put more education dollars in our classrooms, not school buses,” Auditor General Eugene DePasquale said Thursday, referring to a series of previous audits showing that 19 districts, including Dunmore, Scranton and Valley View, spent nearly $55 million more in recent years for transportation services than what the state reimburses.
According to audits, he said:
•Dunmore spent nearly $257,000 more from 2010 to 2012.
• Scranton spent $4.2 million more from 2008 to 2010.
• Valley View spent $1.3 million more from 2010 to 2012.
Local taxpayers picked up those costs as a result, DePasquale said.
Dunmore Superintendent Richard McDonald said his district put up the transportation contract for bidding last year following an audit recommendation. The firm holding the contract, Pete’s Garage, was the low bidder and received the contract again, McDonald said.
DePasquale spokeswoman Susan Woods later called that action good news and said auditors will look at that in any future Dunmore audit.
Scranton school board’s decision in March to extend a no-bid contract with DeNaples Transportation in March drew renewed criticism from DePasquale.
Despite being called out in the last audit for not bidding out transportation services, Scranton extended its existing no-bid DeNaples contract for four years, DePasquale said.
“It’s hard to prove a good deal to taxpayers unless you make the effort to solicit bids,” he said.
Scranton school officials said DeNaples Transportation provides excellent services and buses and the contract extension will yield savings. They criticized the state reimbursement formula as favoring suburban and rural districts.
The state formula hurts Dunmore because it has shorter bus runs, McDonald said.
Efforts to reach Valley View interim Superintendent Corey Castellani were unsuccessful Thursday.
The 16 other districts cited for spending above reimbursement levels on transportation are in western and southeast Pennsylvania. Armstrong School District in Armstrong County spent the most above reimbursement levels at $7.8 million from 2006 to 2010.
School officials are offering lame excuses when they cite flaws in state reimbursement to explain no-bid contracts, DePasquale said.
However, the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials said the transportation formula needs to be reviewed because it is based on a one-size-fits-all formula.
“Because the formula applies uniformly to all 500 school districts regardless of their shape, size, location or transportation requirements, there is no mechanism to take into account the differences in transportation program requirements and costs,” the association said.
The state Public School Code provides state reimbursement to school districts for transportation costs using a formula based on the number of students transported, number of miles traveled and district wealth. There is no requirement in the code for districts to bid contracts competitively.
The association said periodic bidding on transportation contracts could be worthwhile.
“While not currently required by law, we certainly agree that periodic bidding of transportation contracts is a best practice that has the potential to reduce costs,” the association said.
“I think this (bidding requirement) is a bipartisan way to get waste out of state government with having zero impact on services,” DePasquale said.