School board approves new routing software subscription and BoardDocs contract

The Franklin County School Board on a special call approved two vendor contracts pulled from the consent agenda, including a subscription for routing software and a contract for Diligent/BoardDocs, after a discussion of capabilities, costs and vendor responsiveness.

Board members pressed staff on whether the district was operating without routing software and what new features a modern system would provide. "It does have some features in there to do what's called route optimization," said Dr. Nesner, who described the district's current server-based system as antiquated and noted staff had used in-house technology workarounds to upload student data. He added that the preferred vendor, Transfinder, offers cloud hosting, trip tracking and vehicle maintenance reporting that would let staff pull maintenance records ("if you said, hey, I need to see the bus maintenance on bus 71, right now we can pull it"), and that some competitors charge additional subscription fees for similar features.

Board members also asked about GPS tracking and coverage. Dr. Nesner said buses and vans used for special transportation have GPS capability but that cellular dead spots exist in parts of the county; he said he would check and report back on particulars.

Cost figures presented at the meeting showed the district's current server-based product at roughly $23,000–$24,000 per year, while Transfinder's implementation and first-year price was estimated in the discussion at about $46,000, rising to approximately $48,000 in year two and $50,000 thereafter. Other vendors cited during the vendor review quoted higher initial implementation costs (one example given was about $112,000 for the first year).

A board member moved to approve the Transfinder subscription and then amended the motion to approve both the Transfinder routing contract and the Diligent/BoardDocs subscription so both contracts could be forwarded together; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote.

The board did not obligate the district to multiple vendors: members noted that the district would proceed with the single vendor or option ultimately selected and funded. The contracts were placed on record and will proceed under the usual procurement and implementation steps.

The board adjourned shortly after the vote; staff said they would return with any follow-up information requested by members.