Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Peterman transportation contract amendment, including $200,000 credit and one-year rate adjustment
Summary
Milford's board approved an amendment to the district's transportation contract with Peterman that extends the agreement, includes a $200,000 credit to the district and increases the first-year rate by about 5.2%; district staff said projected savings from route changes remain nearly $1 million.
The Milford Exempted Village Board of Education voted March 18 to approve an amendment to the district's contract with Peterman for student transportation.
District staff described the amendment as a negotiated response to reduced route counts after the board approved a shift to state-minimum busing. Under the amendment, the contract extension includes a $200,000 credit the district may apply in the coming year(s). Staff said the first-year cost under the amendment would rise by about 5.2%; subsequent years would use a 3% annual escalator outlined in the contract.
Why it matters: The district expects transportation changes to produce significant operating savings; staff estimated projected savings of just under $1 million from service adjustments and moving to state-minimum busing. The Peterman amendment acknowledges fixed overhead for the contractor when routes decline and provides the credit to offset near-term costs.
Board discussion noted the district solicited bids from vendors and that the amendment was negotiated after the board's earlier decision to move to state minimum for busing. Trustees were assured that removing additional routes would not trigger a further renegotiation because route counts will be at the state minimum.
The motion passed by roll call: Mrs. Will — yes; Mrs. Powers — yes; Mr. Wilson — yes; Mrs. Chestnut — yes; Mrs. Mason — yes.
District staff said the $200,000 credit could be applied all next year or spread across multiple years; the treasurer and operations staff planned to discuss final allocation. Officials did not state a specific contract term in public remarks beyond the extension described during committee discussions.
