Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Impracticality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakota board approves resolution declaring some nonpublic routes 'impractical' despite parents' pleas
Summary
After an hours‑long public comment period where parents criticized late notice and asked for documentation, the Lakota Local Board of Education voted 4–1 to declare transportation to specified nonpublic schools impractical for the 2026–27 school year, freeing the district from providing those routes unless later restored.
The Lakota Local Board of Education voted to approve a resolution declaring transportation to certain nonpublic schools "impractical" for the 2026–27 school year, a measure board members said responds to route‑level efficiency and cost concerns.
Superintendent Ashley Whiteley and transportation staff described the six statutory factors they used to evaluate routes — time and distance, number of pupils, cost, equivalent services, schedule disruption and availability of reimbursable alternatives — and staff summarized route‑by‑route audits that underpinned the decision. "A bus route is a $100,000," Whiteley said while explaining how low ridership can drive high per‑pupil costs.
Parents and community members who addressed the board said they received late or inconsistent notifications and asked the board to delay action until families had more information. "The notice contained a severe data error," said parent Anthony Kolhanick, who warned the district may face statutory deadlines and said he would file a formal concern with the Department of Education and Workforce on Sept. 3.
Board members pressed staff on whether the district had explored alternatives such as adjusted bell times, centralized pick‑up points, collaboration with neighboring districts or private providers. Staff said each child's transportation was evaluated and that the district had applied occupancy thresholds (staff described using a working threshold of about 20 riders) and cost calculations per route.
The board debated whether delaying the vote would be legally permissible because state law requires the determination to be brought to the next board meeting after staff concludes a route is impractical. Ultimately the resolution passed with one board member voting no.
Under the statutory framework described by staff, the board may later add transportation back for specific routes if a feasible solution is found; multiple board members and administrators said they preferred to find ways to restore service when possible.
