Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff recommend declaring St. Mary’s route ‘impractical’ to transport; parents could receive payment‑in‑lieu
Summary
A transportation audit showed low ridership on the St. Mary’s (Berea) route—about 12 riders on average—making the dedicated route costly. Staff recommended the board consider declaring the route impractical; if declared, eligible families could be offered payment‑in‑lieu while parents may challenge the decision under Chapter 119 mediation.
Transportation staff told the Strongsville board on May 14 that the district audited parochial and other external school routes and is recommending the board consider declaring the dedicated St. Mary’s (Berea) route impractical because ridership is low and the per‑student transport cost exceeds the district’s payment‑in‑lieu amount.
Steve Breer (transportation presentation) explained the criteria used in the audit: ridership numbers, the district’s T2 cost‑per‑student metrics, travel distance/time, and whether routes are combined with existing district runs. He said many parochial routes are efficient when they integrate with district routes (St. Joseph/St. John’s and Royal Redeemer were cited as appropriately routed and cost‑effective) but St. Mary’s is a standalone run and transports an average of roughly 12 students. For the students who live in Strongsville, the payment‑in‑lieu to families (if the route were declared impractical) would be roughly half the current annual cost of operating the bus for that route, according to the district calculations presented.
Breer said declaring a route impractical requires specific notice to parents and the receiving school and opens a Chapter 119 mediation process at the state level; while mediation is pending the district must continue to provide transportation. He told the board a declaration could free a route/driver and improve internal scheduling; but if parents or the school file and the magistrate sides with them, the district might still be required to provide service. The board was asked to consider whether to place a resolution on a near‑term agenda and directed administration to contact the school and affected parents for outreach and to give families time to respond.
No final board vote was recorded at the work session; the board suggested placing the item on the next meeting agenda and making direct contact with the school and parents so the community is fully aware of the review.
