Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears transportation update as members weigh trimming roughly $2 million busing line item
Summary
At a board meeting, transportation director "Mister Culver" outlined routing, private-school payments and McKinney‑Vento transport costs and presented options — rebidding contractors, owning buses, or subscription seats — while members urged caution about student safety and equity.
The Little Egg Harbor Township Board of Education heard a transportation briefing from the district’s transportation lead, introduced by the chair as “Mister Culver,” that laid out the district’s current busing costs and potential ways to reduce a roughly $2 million annual transportation line item.
Culver told the board the district must balance safety, state rules and cost. “We have a 131 students currently within the 0 to 2 miles of their assigned school,” he said, and after accounting for students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch the number of students who could be removed from bus routes would be “about 80,” but many would lack safe sidewalks or shoulders to walk.
Why it matters: transportation is one of the district’s largest operating expenses. Culver said the district pays students who choose private or choice schools a state-set reimbursement (quoted in the presentation as $1,177 per student per year, split into two payments) and that McKinney‑Vento obligations to transport homeless students have driven significant costs.
Culver gave the board several concrete figures and tradeoffs. He said the district paid roughly $365,000 in 2022–23 to transport homeless or out-of-district students; for the current year the district has disbursed about $122,000 with an expected additional ~$30,000 before final payments. He also described the state-permitted contractor increase tied to a CPI-plus formula (about 3.57% this cycle), and warned that rebidding routes can yield much higher contract totals, forcing the district to take the lowest responsive bid even if it is substantially more expensive.
Board members asked about alternatives including buying buses and running a partial in-house fleet. Culver gave a rough capital figure for a 54-passenger bus (stated in discussion as roughly $108,000–$170,000 each), and said that starting a district-owned fleet would also require garage space, mechanics, drivers and benefits, plus upfront capital. “Long term, yes,” one board member said of owning buses, “but the start up is a lot.”
Members also pressed on student discipline and safety on buses. Culver said the district recorded roughly 1,500 write-ups this year for bus incidents (some minor; some involving unsafe behaviors) and described plans to categorize infractions and take stricter action next school year to reduce dangerous behavior.
On cameras and evidence, Culver said most large buses have cameras but mini buses do not; video quality varies and the IT department is exploring face‑blurring tools to preserve student privacy while showing actions captured on footage.
Board reaction split around cost versus equity and safety. Some members urged exploring a study or ad hoc committee to analyze whether discontinuing courtesy busing (busing for students within 0–2 miles) could save money, while others warned that asking families to walk on roads without sidewalks could create safety risks and reduce ridership that drives state aid. The administration agreed to prepare additional cost breakdowns and to return with options, including a phased approach to fleet purchases or further analysis of rebidding versus negotiated renewals.
What’s next: the board directed administration to return with more detailed numbers and a transportation implementation plan for late summer or fall that will analyze short‑ and long‑term options, safety implications, and the potential fiscal impact of changes to courtesy busing or fleet ownership.
