Gateway board debates five-year bus contract extension with Student Transportation of America; motion to table fails

Gateway School District board members spent significant time reviewing a proposed five-year extension with Student Transportation of America (STA) during their November meeting, focusing on cost increases, staffing and contract terms.

Business manager Mike Zurellis told the board the district paid roughly $5.2 million for transportation in 2024–25 and received about $1.4 million in state reimbursements, leaving taxpayers on the hook for about $3.8 million. He said the five-year extension includes an estimated total increase of $2,259,000 and that the first-year increase would be about 11% as STA recoups higher driver wages and COVID-era cost pressures. Zurellis noted the contract is enrollment-driven (districts pay per bus/route costs tied to student need) rather than locking the district to a fixed number of buses.

Board members asked whether the agreement included upgrades the vendor would otherwise charge for (surveillance cameras, GPS and routing software) and whether tabling the contract would forfeit those items or increase future costs. Zurellis and legal counsel advised that contracts can be renegotiated by mutual agreement but that the proposal included certain vendor-provided services that the district would otherwise have to purchase separately.

One board member moved to table the contract so incoming board members could review it; supporters said deferral would allow new members to evaluate a major multi-year commitment. Opponents warned that delaying could lose included security or routing improvements and that some financial details needed to be weighed against service continuity. The motion to table went to roll call and did not pass; the chair announced the motion was not tabled and discussion resumed.

The board did not announce a final contract vote in the transcript excerpt; members raised operational follow-ups: confirming whether there is a required minimum number of buses, how enrollment declines would affect obligations, and whether switching vendors midstream would require migration of routing software and result in additional transition costs. Solicitor comments read to the board noted legal room in the contract to adjust services based on student numbers.

What happens next: the board discussed options to either proceed with the contract as proposed or seek further detail (cost of the vendor-provided security/GPS items if purchased separately) before any final action. The transcript records the failed tabling motion but does not include a subsequent final approval vote in the provided excerpt.