Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pupil Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mifflin County board approves five bus contractors, authorizes RFPs amid public concern over special-needs transport
Summary
The Mifflin County School District board approved five multi‑year pupil transportation contracts and authorized requests for proposals for remaining routes after tense public comments from parents and Price Transportation representatives raising safety and special‑needs concerns.
Get email alerts on the Pupil Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Mifflin County School District Board of Directors on March 27 approved five pupil transportation contracts for a five‑year term and authorized the district to issue requests for proposals for unassigned routes, decisions that drew strong public comment from parents and drivers about safety and the transportation of students with special needs.
Parents and drivers urged the board to scrutinize how contracts were negotiated and to consider the specialized needs of students who require mini‑bus transportation. “Can we, as a district, say that we have negotiated busing contracts in good faith?” said Britney Shea, identifying herself as a parent and taxpayer, asking the board to explain how contractors could remain safe and pay drivers adequately. “With safety comes costs, including new equipment and update to technology,” she said.
Mandy Yana, speaking as a representative of Price Transportation, which the speaker said provides many of the district’s specialized runs, told the board the company carries 2,400 students on 42 runs including 14 mini‑bus runs for students with special needs and 14 van runs. “Of these 2,400 students… over 400 of them are children with special needs and IEPs,” Yana said, citing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as the federal requirement that the district provide required specialized transportation services. She warned smaller contractors lack the vehicles, equipment and trained drivers to meet those needs and said drivers already accept low pay and difficult working conditions: “I myself am not driving full time because I have a 6 herniated disc in my neck. But I am driving tomorrow because I don't want injustice and children not to be able to come home from school.”
After initial attempts to table the motion failed, the board voted to approve five contractors for pupil transportation for July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2030: Fisher Brothers Inc.; J and L Rome Services LLC; KV Bus Line; Rhodes Bus Company; and Yoder Tourways, Inc. A subsequent, separate vote authorized district administration to prepare and solicit RFPs for routes that have not been accepted or assigned for the same five‑year period, a step board members said would allow outside providers to bid on unassigned runs.
Public commenters continued after the votes. Ashley Fulton criticized the board’s action as likely to affect employees and students: “I hope that everyone can go to sleep knowing that they likely put a lot of people out of jobs tonight, affected a lot of students,” she said. Another speaker who identified herself as a special‑needs parent said the district could not legally transport students who require specialized vehicles without mini‑buses and lifts, and questioned how smaller companies could obtain the necessary equipment.
Board members discussed procedural questions during the motion—one member moved to table the transportation contracts, which failed—before proceeding to the approval vote and the separate authorization to issue RFPs. The record shows differing votes on the contract approvals; several board members voted against the motion before it passed. The RFP authorization passed in a later roll call.
The district indicated RFPs will allow any interested provider, including the newly approved contractors and outside companies, to bid on routes. Board members and staff acknowledged the complexity of balancing cost, contractor capacity and legal obligations to transport students with disabilities.
Board staff and some members pointed to the RFP process as the district’s mechanism to ensure routes are served, while public commenters urged the board to prioritize vehicle safety, driver pay and the continuity of service for students with IEPs.
The board did not announce immediate changes to existing assignments; staff said the RFP process will determine which providers take on unassigned routes and that the district will continue to comply with federal requirements for special‑education transportation.

