Transportation To/From 1 st Year Close

1. Transportation To/From1st Year Close August 2008 – WASBO ABC Video-Conference

2. Original Guidance • Original guidance was provided in an addendum to the Accounting Manual under Bulletin 025-08 Addendum issued 8/20/07.

3. What are we trying to accomplish? The BIG picture. • Program 99 object 2 thru 9 will capture the total costs of operations for student transportation and related costs. • Non to/from bus transportation will be charged from program 99 to the benefiting program through the db/cr transfer process.

4. What are we trying to accomplish? • Costs not attributable to bus transportation operations will be removed from program 99 and charged elsewhere through a journal entry against objects 2 thru 9. • The total program 99 costs including the credit transfers out will represent the state to/from costs of transportation.

5. To-and-From School Transportation Attachment 1: • Attachment 1, To-and-From School Transportation Guidance, includes guidance on: • Accounting for non-to-and-from-school (non-state-funded) transportation. • Calculating to-and-from school (state-funded) and non-to-and-from-school (non-state-funded) transportation. • Miscellaneous issues, including how to account for fuel, bus aides, and transportation-related utilities.

6. To-and-From School Transportation Attachment 2: • Program 99 Transportation Matrix by Activity and Object: • shows each activity-object combination in program 99 and • defines the costs in each combination as core, incremental, or direct costs. • These definitions drive the calculation of non-state-funded transportation.

7. To-and-From School TransportationAttachment 3: • Transportation Models: • 2 models to split costs between state-and non-state-funded transportation. • Short Method: • Optional one-step method. • Applied at year-end. • Uses current year mileage and expenditures. • Available only for class 2 districts.

8. To-and-From School Transportation • Long Method: • Default two-step method. • Per mile calculation. • Per hour calculation. • Applied throughout the year. • Per mile calculation uses prior year: • Mileage from Bus Mileage Report. • Expenditures inflated by Per Pupil Inflator of 5.7% for 2007–08. • Cost per driver (for per hour) may be calculated 3 ways.

9. To-and-From School Transportation Attachment 4: • Transportation Frequently Asked Questions: • Two sections: • How to define to-and-from school transportation. • How to apply the to-and-from school transportation accounting guidelines.

10. Other- Transportation $12.5M • 07-08 funding was based upon the JLARC study results. • 08-09 funding will be determined & distributed based upon the 07–08 F-196 reporting. • Funding will not be available until January 2009. • At this time OSPI cannot project this funding for 08-09.

11. Journal Entry or Db/ CR ??? • Program 99 in objects 2 thru 9 should be reflecting the total costs of operating the yellow bus fleet. • If a cost is not related to To/From or the operation of the school bus fleet get it out by doing a journal entry directly against objects 2 thru 9. • If the cost is a yellow bus cost that is not to/from then use a Db/Cr transfer to allow the expense to remain in Objects 2-9.

12. JE or Db/Cr???? • The net result is: • Program 99 - objects 2-9 reflect the operating costs of the buses • When we reduce this for the credit transfers in object 1 we get the net to/from costs under the methodology.

13. Adjust for Actual Fuel Costs? • The methodology was set up to expense non to/from buses based upon the prior year costs experience. • The methodology was not intended to capture real time fuel costs and current year maintenance charges. • The methodology does not allow for adjustment based upon current year costs.

14. Adjust for Actual Fuel Costs? • Why was this based upon prior year?? • Consistency and stability. • Actual fuel costs average would require all costs to be adjusted at year end. • Or districts would have to adjust each trip to current market costs as they occurred. • We did not feel the difference obtained in the costing (for all districts) justified the large workload that current year costing would have imposed.

15. A Local Cost Rate Was Used?? • Many districts had established and used a different cost per mile in their budgets than the method would yield. • The credit transfer to Program 99 should be adjusted to the correct rate. Charging back to all programs would be difficult. In lieu of adjusting all charge backs, district may recognize the offset to the adjustment in Program 89.

16. ASB • The guidance provided instructs districts to reduce the program 99 expenditures for the transportation billing to ASB. • This improperly reduces the costs pool. If not significant district can account for ASB charges this way. • If material, district should not reduce Program 99 expenditure directly. • The work around is not elegant.

17. ASB • To maintain the integrity of the program 99 cost pool: • Districts can first db/cr ASB transportation expenditures to program 89. • Prog 89 XXX • Program 99 XXX • And then make a credit against these expenditures for ASB billings.

18. Contracting Districts • For contracting district the contract or vendor billings should be able to provide you the actual costs of non-to/from or activity buses. • Your information to charge back to programs should be received from your vendor. • The costing determination performed in the long-form does not apply.

19. Transportation To/From • Open floor for comments, questions and answers