Kent School District transportation officials presented a four‑phase plan to gradually reduce student walk boundaries to a one‑mile maximum and described the staffing, mileage and near‑term budget implications.

Justin Denison, Director of Transportation, told the school board that a November “what‑if” scenario showed 1,800 more students would become eligible for bus service if the district moved to a one‑mile walk boundary. “If we moved our boundaries from their current distances to 1 mile, which is what the state reimburses districts for, what it would take for us to operate at that level,” Denison said at the work session.

Denison said that earlier modeling from November estimated adding 29 additional runs and 17 bus routes and that updated cost assumptions raised the district’s per‑bus operating estimate. Using the district’s revised 2024–25 inputs — a mileage rate of $4.40 per mile and a blended driver cost of $42.70 per hour (wages plus benefits) — Denison said an average route of 11,342 miles per year and an average driver day of 6.9 hours yields roughly $105,000 per route annually.

To reach the one‑mile goal, transportation staff proposed a four‑phase rollout. Next year (phase 1) the district will not change formal boundaries but will “shave” portions of existing boundaries and maximize seats on routes that currently have space; Denison said that approach could add roughly 300 newly eligible students next year. The district expects inclusive‑education routes to expand and said those added routes will require priority staffing. In the plan’s middle phases the district would reduce middle and high‑school walk boundaries in quarter‑mile steps (middle from 1.75 miles toward 1.0; high school from 2.0 toward 1.0), adding roughly five routes and seven drivers in some years. Denison said the full plan would require 54 bus drivers in total to reach a one‑mile maximum for all schools.

Board members pressed staff on safety, funding and operational assumptions. Director Clark emphasized sidewalks: “Unfortunately from my perspective it is not the distance, but it is the distance without sidewalks,” and urged staff to prioritize routes that serve students in areas with no pedestrian infrastructure. Denison said routing decisions would factor in sidewalk presence and community safety concerns, and that transportation staff already work with city and county partners on crosswalk timing, signalization and other safety improvements.

Board members also questioned the district’s cost and reimbursement assumptions. Denison said the state reimbursement framework is developed by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and that the district reports transportation expenses in Program 99. “They say that transportation is fully funded, but what we find is that we’re, like, 95% funded because it’s taking previous year’s expenses and allocating giving us an allocation for the current year,” Denison said.

Staff acknowledged operational constraints beyond money, particularly driver recruitment and retention. Denison said the district is expanding its trainer capacity: two district drivers were accepted to Washington State driver‑trainer instructor school and the district’s paid‑training program has improved candidate throughput. Board members discussed competitive wages and benefits and noted barriers applicants face before their first day of driving.

The presentation included a range of estimates and caveats: route‑capacity projections assume some buses will operate at or near capacity and that not every run will be filled; timing and bell schedules complicate route consolidation; fuel and maintenance costs are variable and can offset maintenance savings from a newer fleet. Denison said updated per‑mile and wage rates produced the district’s latest operating estimates.

No formal vote was taken on boundary changes during the work session; staff presented the scenarios and fielded questions from the board. Transportation staff said they would continue outreach to jurisdictional partners and bring further details as parts of the plan are refined.

Board members encouraged staff to prioritize safety improvements where sidewalks are missing, pursue partnerships with city and county engineering teams, and continue work to expand training capacity to recruit drivers.

The district provided no final timetable for a formal boundary change vote; the presentation described a phased operational plan and estimated staff and budget needs for each phase.