Dayton board weighs options as Ohio House Bill 96 could curb student transfers at downtown bus hubs

Dr. Jones, a district staff member, told the Dayton Board of Education on May 29 that pending state legislation could sharply reduce the district's ability to move students through downtown transfer hubs and that the district must plan now for several costly options. “If house bill 96 passes, again, our students will not be able to transfer, to another bus downtown,” Dr. Jones said.

The question matters because the district currently relies on transfers through downtown hubs and a combination of Dayton Public Schools (DPS) buses, RTA passes and contracted services to move high‑school students. The board heard staff estimates and tradeoffs: a one‑year limited RTA service (LS) would require negotiation and about a year to implement; expanding DPS-owned bus capacity could require buying about 73 buses at roughly $10.9 million plus hiring drivers; and a full internal option was estimated at roughly $16 million in year one when vehicle purchases are included. Dr. Jones said the district had discussed two broad paths: “Option 1 is to commit to a signed contract with RTA for LS routes” and “Option 2 is to increase our capacity to transport DPS students, charter school students, and parochial students.”

Why it matters: board members said the effects would extend beyond transportation to attendance, safety and school operations. Doctor Lawrence and other board members reported parent survey responses saying families could face financial strain or withdraw students if transportation is reduced. Board member Karen Wick cited historical experience after a prior suspension of high‑school transportation and warned that some schools saw chronic absenteeism spikes when service was cut.

Staff laid out practical constraints and costs. Dr. Jones said RTA told district staff it could develop alternate, non‑downtown hubs but that such a plan would take at least a year to staff and equip. Dr. Jones gave two concrete cost figures from staff estimates: roughly $3 million to set up limited‑service RTA routes (year one, without full coverage) and roughly $16 million in the first year to own and operate a fleet large enough to replace hub transfers — with recurring driver salary/benefit costs estimated at about $5 million per year thereafter. He also flagged the district's legal exposure: “If we ever took any step of boldness like that, we need our community to back us on this. Because, again, although anyone in Dayton can elect any of the 7 people up here…we will be sued 100%,” he said when the board discussed the possibility of prioritizing district students.

Board discussion focused on impact scenarios and timing. Members asked staff for attendance and absenteeism data from prior years when routes changed and for updated modeling of the costs and timelines for each option. Several board members suggested town halls and broader community engagement before any major change; others urged creative, neighborhood‑led alternatives (carpools, vans, partnerships) as part of a “village” effort. Board members also flagged enforcement uncertainty if House Bill 96 passes and noted that involvement from charter schools and community partners would be necessary if DPS reduced service.

Direction to staff and next steps: The board asked staff to provide updated attendance and impact analyses and to return with a recommendation once the state legislative picture was clearer. Dr. Jones and others told the board they expect to have enough clarity to communicate to families in July if the legislature finalizes changes: “We are going to be able to communicate to our families in July of what we're doing,” a staff member said. No formal change to transportation policy was adopted at the May 29 meeting.

Additional context: board members recalled earlier suspensions of high‑school transportation under previous superintendents and cited mixed evidence about attendance effects. The board also discussed possible third‑party providers (First Student, Peterman) and Dayton’s Regional Transit Authority (RTA) as partners in potential solutions. Several members stressed the difference between a temporary pause and long‑term cuts, and emphasized the need for community involvement before acting.

The board and staff agreed on a work plan: staff will gather attendance and family‑impact data, refine cost models for the RTA and fleet options, and return to the board by July with clearer recommendations tied to the state legislative outcome.