Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 22 approves five-year on-site bus contract amid debate over costs and off-site alternatives
Summary
After extensive debate about vendor scarcity, route times and potential off-site parking costs, the RSU 22 board approved a five-year on-site student-transportation contract with Cyr Bus (voice vote). Board members discussed off-site alternatives, owning a fleet, and the fiscal trade-offs.
The RSU 22 school board voted to approve a five-year student-transportation contract with Cyr Bus for on-site bus storage after extended discussion over cost, vendor availability and safety implications.
District staff described the RFP process (issued in February) and said only one vendor submitted proposals: an on-site 3- and 5-year option and an off-site 5-year option. The off-site option was presented as roughly $650,000 more in year one and about $3 million more over five years compared with the on-site proposal; the vendor did not specify a particular off-site property in the proposal.
Board members questioned the process and the market. "It does not make sense for a 19% increase," one member said, urging the administration to consider reissuing the RFP or soliciting bids from a broader area. Another member noted that nearby districts (Bangor, Brewer, Old Town, Orono) use the same vendor and that RSU 22's prior pricing had been similar to peers.
District staff said the contract includes provisions to handle route combining and driver shortages (the district would be reimbursed if scheduled buses are combined), and that the vendor aims to keep maximum ride times near 45 minutes. Staff also said the bus company and schools maintain incident reporting and that bullying incidents reported via transportation are included in required school reporting.
Board members explored alternatives: negotiating a shorter contract term to avoid long commitments, pursuing off-site parking with private partners, or owning a district fleet. District staff said owning buses would add significant complexity and cost (vehicles, mechanics, insurance, staff), and that privately staging buses off-site would require investment in parking, electric hookups and a staff facility. Several board members argued that the district cannot justify a multi-million-dollar, off-site investment at this time given tight budgets; others said safety and logistics justified prioritized action.
At the end of the debate the motion on the table to accept the five-year on-site proposal from Cyr Bus was called; the board approved the contract by voice vote. The meeting transcript records that the motion carried.
The contract approval does not itself change bus staging at McGraw; board members continued to discuss off-site options and asked the administration to continue exploring feasible alternatives that do not obligate the district to an expensive property investment.
The board's vote came amid broader budget discussions and a caution from members about long-term fiscal commitments; some members preferred a shorter contract term while others favored the multi-year price stability offered in the five-year option.
