Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lorain City Schools reviews transportation costs, weighs bringing all routes in‑house
Summary
District staff presented a multi-year review of transportation costs at the June 9 board meeting, citing rising special‑education and McKinney‑Vento expenses, an expiring Auxilio contract for non‑public routes and a projection that investing in buses and facilities could pay back within a few years.
At the Lorain City Schools Board of Education meeting on June 9, district leaders presented a multi‑year accounting of student‑transportation costs and recommended further steps to reduce subcontracting expenses.
Superintendent staff and transportation department representatives told the board the district now operates a mixed model of in‑house and contracted routes. The district’s in‑house fleet was described as 25 full‑size buses, five vans, two minibuses and two “ortho” buses equipped for wheelchair transport; the staff count cited was 28 drivers and 24 monitors. Staff said the district currently runs 23 in‑house routes and contracts out 14 non‑public routes to Auxilio, a provider that handles transportation to charter and private schools.
Transportation staff said bringing more routes in‑house has already lowered some costs but that special‑education and homeless‑student (McKinney‑Vento) transportation obligations are growing. Staff reported the district’s contracted special‑education transportation totaled about $1,220,000 and said McKinney‑Vento costs rose from roughly $54,000 in 2022 to about $147,000 in the most recent year. The presentation included an example that transporting a single student across town can cost “$60,000 a year” when a dedicated bus, staffing and specialized care are required.
Board members pressed staff on contract timing: speakers said the Auxilio contract expires in about one year and that the district may be required under the contract to keep at least one route with that contractor next year. Staff said that decision point will require a board discussion about whether to buy more buses or continue a hybrid model.
Staff also presented high‑level cost comparisons showing that, after the initial capital outlay for buses and a transportation facility, the district could realize payback in roughly two to three years and then see ongoing savings. Staff estimated the cost to purchase a new fleet increment (about 10 buses) at roughly $1.3 million and said that, after that upfront investment, the district could expect a return on investment in approximately two years.
The district pointed to the state T2 reimbursement process as an offset to local costs and said it has worked to maximize that reimbursement. Staff urged investment in driver retention, upgraded fleet technology (including cameras), continued route consolidation where appropriate and closer oversight of subcontracted routes.
Board members asked about alternatives the district had considered, including using regional transit providers. Staff said those providers typically lack the capacity or specialized equipment needed for many students and that some subcontracted trips already use smaller vehicles or door‑to‑door service when clinically required.
No immediate policy change or contract award related to transportation was voted at the meeting; staff said the board would need to decide within the next year whether to expand the in‑house fleet or extend subcontracting.
