Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents press Blue Valley over repeated late, missing buses; district cites driver shortages and 96–97% on‑time rate
Summary
At the Nov. 10 Blue Valley Board of Education meeting a parent described multiple late or missing runs on Bus 29; district staff said contractor Durham is covering routes with substitute drivers and reported on‑time performance in the mid‑90s while working to hire and retain drivers.
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A Blue Valley parent told the school board on Nov. 10 that his family and many others have repeatedly experienced late or missing school buses on Bus 29 and asked the district to pursue penalties or refunds from its contractor for poor service.
"On 10/3 bus 29 is 30 minutes late, 45 minutes late, and 20 minutes late…on 10/22 bus 29 has no driver," parent Brett Locksterman said during public comment, citing a series of text updates his household received. He said the inconsistent service forces families to choose between leaving a child at home or being late to work and asked the board to review what penalties the district can enforce against Durham and whether parents can be reimbursed for paid service that failed to meet expectations.
Jason Gillum, district staff called forward later in the meeting to respond to the open‑forum concerns, said Durham is covering some routes with substitute drivers while it recruits permanent drivers. "We have about 15 to 17 routes today that do not have a regular bus driver," he said, and the district measures on‑time performance to an "anchor time" within a 10‑minute window. Gillum said the contractor's on‑time performance is currently "96, 97," short of the district's 98 percent target, and that occasional longer delays of 30–45 minutes have occurred but are not the consistent pattern.
Gillum told the board the district holds Durham to a service‑level agreement that includes on‑time measures and that the contractor must staff routes to be paid. He cited hiring challenges—applicants failing criminal background, driving, DOT physical and drug/alcohol screenings—and noted that many contracted drivers live outside the district, making recruitment local community members important.
Board members pressed for details about progress and whether additional contract remedies or reimbursement for families are available. One board member said, "We need to remind Durham that one of our main tenants is 'beyond expectations' and I suspect they're not meeting that if you ask the people they're serving." Gillum said he would share the written report provided at a recent workshop and agreed the district will continue holding Durham accountable while seeking more drivers.
The district did not announce a new penalty or reimbursement plan at the meeting; staff said they are working on staffing and route adjustments and will report back.
Next steps: district staff agreed to share the workshop report on bus performance and to continue working with Durham on hiring and scheduling; parents are expected to follow up with district contacts.

