Kiski Area board outlines months‑long negotiations and defends move toward Myers Transportation amid driver backlash

Kiski Area School District officials on Monday detailed a months‑long negotiation over the district's transportation contract and recommended pursuing a lower‑cost proposal from Myers Transportation, prompting vocal public opposition from drivers and Smith Bus representatives.

Superintendent Dr. Lauer said the district's objective was to "continue to provide safe and reliable transportation to our students, but also protecting the financial interests of the taxpayers of this community." He told the board the incumbent contractor, Smith Bus Company, submitted a proposal with increases as high as 24% on the district's most‑used full‑size buses and an overall average that approached 18% in year one. "When the actual proposals are placed side by side and compared to the actual bus runs … the proposal from Myers Transportation is less expensive significantly for the taxpayers of this community," he said.

Business manager Mr. Roberto presented the district's timeline and comparative analysis, tracing the procurement steps from a December 15, 2025 proposal development through multiple vendor meetings in February and March. Roberto said Smith Bus’s revised offer reflected an average increase of about 17.5% and that Myers’ initial proposal averaged roughly 16.4% in year one; a later Myers 10‑year offer included fuel allotments, periodic rate freezes, a commitment to a district facility and other concessions. Roberto told the board the district’s seven‑year cost comparison shows a savings of roughly $658,580 if the district contracts with Myers, or about $100,000 per year on average.

Those numbers were sharply disputed during the meeting’s public‑comment period. Matthew Smith, identified as a part owner of Smith Bus Company, said the district's handout and a spreadsheet circulated on social media were inaccurate and invoked a PASBO transportation study that recommended against changing contractors. "The study... does not recommend changing transportation contractors at this time," Smith told the board, urging a third‑party review before a decision.

Several Smith Bus drivers and supporters—many of whom identified themselves at the podium—pressed the board on service reliability, driver hiring and training, in‑district maintenance and the personal ties drivers have with students. Jennifer Redemer, a Smith driver who acknowledged making social‑media posts about the issue, said she would not drive for Myers. "That culture matters," she said, describing on‑bus family‑style gestures from students and longstanding mentor relationships.

Other commenters alleged wrongdoing or conflict of interest. James Williams accused a former business manager and a bus company of taking $365,000; the board stopped his line of attack and reminded speakers not to target individuals during public comment. The district repeatedly denied allegations that board members personally benefited from the procurement.

District staff addressed the most cited social‑media claim—that switching to Myers would cost taxpayers $2 million more—by explaining mileage accounting in the Myers draft contract, how the district’s invoices separate daily/regular routes from special‑education and out‑of‑district runs, and why adding certain mileage in the way the social‑media spreadsheet did was a misinterpretation. The district maintained its seven‑year savings calculation at about $658,580 and said it would publish the proposals and the comparison so the public could review the basis for the analysis.

Board members repeatedly framed the choice as a fiscal responsibility: several said they supported administration's work to avoid a nearly $630,000 annual impact described in early reviews of Smith’s submission. They also emphasized concern for drivers and urged contractors to hire local drivers; multiple trustees asked whether Myers would interview interested Smith drivers.

Procedural business proceeded after public comment: the board approved representative reports, minutes and a series of consent items (personnel, finance, bills, student activities and construction items) by voice vote. The meeting record does not show a roll‑call vote disposing of the transportation contract itself during this session; the administration said the procurement documents and the district’s comparison would be presented publicly and made available for review.

What’s next: the district said the formal proposals and the comparative spreadsheet would be made available so community members can compare line‑by‑line totals and mileage assumptions. Board members encouraged residents with questions to email Dr. Lauer or the business office for clarification.

Sources and attribution: quotes and factual attributions come from the meeting transcript and public commenters. The board’s numerical comparisons were presented by Mr. Roberto; Smith Bus responses came from Matthew Smith and several Smith drivers who spoke during public comment. The district identified the PASBO transportation study as background material that recommended increased in‑house oversight and cautioned about changing contractors without adequate knowledge of routing.

Ending: the district framed its action as an attempt to balance student safety and taxpayer cost; the board accepted multiple routine agenda items and closed the meeting after additional public comments and trustee remarks.