001Welcome everyone to the legal and contract committee meeting here on February 18th, 2026. The time is 4:33. I am the chair Nathan Jeros. Joining me is vice chair member Montgomery. We also have our board vice president Dr. Renee Molnar with us as well as our legal counsel Davidusk and our superintendent Outly. So to begin this evening, this afternoon, we will go ahead and go to the previous meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> So, >> okay. And the chair will second. All in favor? >> I and we pass. Member Hall will be joining us shortly. Now, our first presentation of the evening is by David Shance on House Bill 42 and the impacts that that will have. So, if Mr. chance we would like to come up to the lectern and
002we are happy to hear what you have to say on this matter. >> Thank you. Uh I want to thank you for your interest and uh uh I had sent some documents over uh about about the House Bill 42 and um and and the uh the propo a proposed uh resolution. Um the the document on House Bill 42, I simplified it. It's 25 pages long, but there's really only two pages worth of items that impact the board. But but I'd like to to uh comment on the questions that this bill raises. Um I'm afraid that uh that this this bill uh requires the will require the ACA board to track citizenship status and immigrant status uh of all the students and then send all that information to uh the to the governor who will publish
003aggregate information on his website. And um it was introduced last February. Uh so it's been been a year. It's been through committee. It's been through three hearings of the committee in the House. Still has to go to the House for a vote and then move to the Senate uh before the end of this year. Um, so I guess what I what I would propose is that this would be uh change the face of the schools to some of the students as being and families as being unwelcoming and and targeting. Um, it's going to be a burden on the board. additional work and recordkeeping, changes of forms and processes to accommodate all this information. And it's there's no money in the in the bill to support all of that. Of course, um then uh the reporting
004al also could discourage some children from being registered. families would be afraid to register their children for based on repercussions and um so it would impact uh the city and that we would have might have residents that are not participating in the education program and be to become assets to the to the community. I also noticed that frankly there's no mention of charter schools or private schools in any of this. And I don't know would the charter school would would the board be responsible for the charter school students? I I don't know how all that would work. It's kind of fraught with with uh vakeness. Uh so uh that that that's that's my comments regarding the bill. Uh the the resolution I think is straightforward, simple, and uh and also uh similar to what the
005city of Akran has passed in the past week regarding this this plus uh three other bills I believe. Uh but this is the one that directly impacts the board. So, there any questions? >> Yeah. Well, thank you, Mr. Shance. Member Montgomery, any questions or comments? >> No, I mean, I think it's an important issue to pay attention to and making sure that we're um having the best interests of our students in mind as we move that and look and see what administrative burdens are as we move through that. So, I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. I think it was on our radar, but it was good to see uh members of the public uh bring it to our attention as well. So, thank you. >> Okay. Happy to do it. Thanks >> again.
006Any other comments? >> Okay. >> Excellent. >> And so, thank you so much, Mr. Chance. We did take your comments with the resolution wording. We worked it ourselves a little bit. I know Mr. Spusk also provided some guidance. And so, I'll go ahead and uh read the proposed Ohio House Bill 42 resolution that we are planning to hopefully recommend out of this committee and to the general membership meeting on February 23rd. So it reads, "A resolution of the Akran Board of Education opposing Ohio House Bill 42. Whereas Akran Public Schools mission is to serve every student by enriching his or her talents and interests, developing well-rounded young people through strong innovative programs that stimulate curiosity and appeal to students passions for life and learning and preparing young people for a positive future. And whereas the
007Akran Board of Education has the statutory responsibility under RC 3313.17 to provide the management and control of the district and to advocate for policies that support the educational needs of its students. And whereas Ohio House Bill 42 in the 136th General Assembly would require the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce to collect and publicly report data on the citizenship or immigration status of students enrolled in Ohio public schools, including disagregated counts of students who are United States citizens, lawfully present non-citizens, and individuals not lawfully present in the United States. And whereas the mandated collection and reporting of student citizenship or immigration status introduces the risk of traumatic effects on student enrollment, attendance, and family engagement, undermining trust between schools and communities they serve. And whereas Akran public schools is committed to providing a safe, inclusive,
008and welcoming learning environment for every student, regardless of background, and to ensure that students and families feel secure accessing educational services without fear or stigma. And whereas policies that require the tracking and public reporting of immigration related student data conflict with Akran public schools mission to enrich students' talents and interests, foster curiosity and engagement, and prepare young people for a positive future by prioritizing belonging, safety, and educational access. And whereas compliance with HB42 would impose additional administrative and compliance burdens on school districts and staff, diverting time and resources away from instruction, student support, and academic and social emotional development. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Akran Board of Education formally condemns and opposes Ohio House Bill 42 as inconsistent with the mission, values, and educational priorities of Akran public schools. And be it further
009resolved that the board urges the Ohio General Assembly to reject House Bill 42 and to remove requirements that compel schools of or the or the Department of Education and Workforce to collect and report student citizenship or immigration status. And be it further resolved that the board directs the superintendent to communicate this resolution to members of the Ohio General Assembly by representing the Akran community, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, and the office of the governor, and to collaborate with other school districts and educational organizations in advocacy efforts opposing the enactment of Ohio House Bill 42. And be it further resolved that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to limit Akran public schools obligation to comply with applicable state or federal law. But the board affirms its commitment to advocating for policies that protect
010student dignity, privacy, and equitable access to public education. Are there any comments or questions about the current writing of the resolution? All right. Is there a motion to recommend this resolution to the general membership meeting on February 23rd? >> So moved. >> Okay. And seconded by the chair. All in favor? >> I. And the motion passes. So we will be sending this to the general membership meeting on February 23rd. Hello member hall. Thank you for joining us. Next on our agenda is the resolution regarding House Bill 671. And in the briefest of terms, the purpose of this bill as introduced, here's the purpose here as a brief description, the bill is a direct response to a lawsuit by districts arguing that voucher programs drain necessary funds from public schools. a claim bolstered by a 2025
011ruling that found the Ed Choice program unconstitutional. So, what this bill is proposing is a financial penalt penalty to districts who are suing the state over the vouchers or funding formulas and that would require their state funding be placed in escrow. And so with that facing our district, we know that the current person who proposed this legislation is starting to backtrack, but we are going to continue and make sure that we have a strong response to this imposing coercive bill. So we do have a resolution on House Bill 671. So I will go ahead and read that one as well. And then of course any comments or feedback can be provided after it's read. So, a resolution of the Akran public, excuse me, the Akran board of education condemning Ohio House Bill 671. Whereas, Akran
012public schools mission is to serve every student by enriching his or her talents and interests, developing well-rounded young people through strong, innovative programs that stimulate curiosity and appeal to students passions for life and learning, and preparing young people for a positive future. And whereas the Akran Board of Education has the statutory responsibility under RC 3313.17 to provide for the management and control of the district and to advocate for policies that support the educational needs of its students. And whereas Ohio House Bill 671 of the 136th General Assembly would require the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce to withhold state foundation funding from any school district that is a complainant or participant in legal action challenging the calculation or distribution of foundation funding, including funding related to state scholarship and voucher programs. And whereas access to
013the courts is a fundamental component of due process and school districts must retain the ability to seek judicial review of state funding systems without fear of financial retaliation. And whereas withholding state foundation funding as a penalty for engaging in lawful legal action would disproportionately harm students by reducing resources for instruction, student supports, transportation, special education services, and essential operations. And whereas policies that financially penalize school districts for advocating for equitable and constitutional funding structures undermine local governance subdue legitimate advocacy and conflict with the Akran public schools commitment to ensuring every student has access to the resources necessary for a highquality education. And whereas such punitive funding mechanisms create uncertainty in district financial planning and stability impeding Akran public schools ability to deliver strong innovative programs that stimulate curiosity and support students passions for life and
014learning. Now therefore be it resolved that that the Akran Board of Education formally condemns and opposes House Ohio House Bill 671 as inconsistent with the mission and values of Akran public schools and harmful to students educational opportunities. And be it further resolved that the board urges the Ohio General Assembly to reject House Bill 671 and to refrain from enacting policies that penalize school districts for exercising their legal right to challenge the constitutionality or equity of state funding mechanisms, including voucher programs. And be it further resolved that the board directs the superintendent to transmit this resolution to members of the Ohio General Assembly representing the Akran community, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce and the Office of the Governor and to collaborate with other school districts and educational organizations in advocating against the enactment of
015Ohio House Bill 671. And be it further resolved that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to limit Akran public schools obligation to comply with applicable state and federal law. And the board affirms its commitment to advocating for policies that protect equit equitably excuse me equitable access to public education and the fiscal stability necessary to serve every student. Any comments, questions, or suggestions for revision by any of the members on this committee? Okay. Any from the administration or other members? Okay. Is there a motion to recommend the resolution of the OAN board of education condemning House Bill 671 to the general membership meeting on February 23rd? >> So moved. >> All right. Member Hall motions. >> Second. >> Member Montgomery seconds. All in favor say I. >> I. And the motion passes for recommendation at
016the February 23rd meeting. Next item on our agenda is the 12 month 12 month contract renewal expiration report progress update. Mr. Sepus would like to update the committee on that progress. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh as you know this is a project that is going to put all the agreements uh that APS is involved in uh in one landing spot that can be reviewed for their expiration dates uh and also the related parties uh to the agreements and to give us a runway uh to be able to go throughout the year in advance and member hall you've mentioned this in the past as well to for the board to have these uh and know in advance as opposed to these last minute or uh you know towards the end of an expiration date where
017the board's discussing and making decisions. So it certainly helps to facilitate and will help to facilitate um every every department every unit in the district uh has been doing a very good job of populating uh the document. We're in the process of integrating uh the academic agreements uh at this time and so while the target date was uh you know here at the the February 18th uh we will definitely have before the next uh committee meeting uh a document that is is worth review and consideration for the committee. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Sepusk. Any questions, comments by the committee? >> Yes. Go ahead. Member Hall. Thank you for that because you guys know I'm always like, "Okay, we got got to stop doing last minute stuff." So, um, quick question though. While this
018document is being created, um, how many contracts are up between now and then that we would have to vote on? >> Well, at this point, we're working with member Jeros. Uh, and so, >> can you speak into your mic a little bit? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. That's okay. >> Get quiet. Um we're working with member Duros and it's been on a monthly for this committee. You know, contracts expiring in the coming month. So you'll see uh two agreements in 4.02 uh for for this committee's uh review. Uh but given the cycle of a public school district, most of the agreements uh run from a July 1 to a June 30th time range. So it'll be late spring uh May and June where a lot of the agreements will be turning over. >> Okay. Go ahead.
019>> Thank you. Any other comments from any other members? All right, hearing none. Well, I want to thank the administration for taking on this project. I know it may seem like a daunting undertaking, but I appreciate the effort in getting organized so that we don't have lastm minute contracts springing up on us. Now, moving to 4.02. There are talk about contracts that renew or expire in March. There are two for discussion. The very first one is the IT contract three three-year agreement and presenting that or giving us an update is IT director Mr. Ruion. >> Hi, good evening honorable board members. Um we do have two recommendations um for two POS that um technically fall under our cyber security program. Um, so if you have any specific questions, I would do my best to answer
020them, but if it gets too much into detail, it would be best if we went into executive session to cover those details. >> Member Montgomery. >> Yeah, I was just going to say there was there was a recent bill in the House that passed about cyber security and going into executive session. So, um, the actually, ironically enough, today at the border control at the county, uh, our we passed our resolution to, uh, go into executive session to discuss cyber security related contracts. I don't know if we want to look at so like for us I don't know where these quotations went if they just came to us if they're made public like we need to make sure um that if we are going to talk about going into executive session related to cyber security that
021we're also not posting the contracts and the quotations on the public site uh for that security measure. So I'm I'm all in favor of it. I just think that it's very important because it is required actually uh by law now. So um but I just wanted to point that out that I see that we have them but I don't know where they went outside of that. Um and I think as long as the members get the copies in advance like going into executive session would be if we have questions to talk about the detail of it. Uh but not necessarily just to review and approve the agenda item. But yeah I I agree. Thanks for pointing that out. >> Yeah. Go ahead member Hall. So I guess just to piggyback off of member U. McGomery,
022have these two documents been public? >> So if I may, yes. Yeah, these the two documents we have here are not the actual contracts. So the nuts and bolts of our cyber security has not been released on those agreements. >> So then what are we looking at right here then? What is this these documents? >> I actually do they appear to be the invoice? That's what it looks like to me is the invoice like what we're spending for the software and who we're contracting with >> companies. Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> And now have we used these companies before? Is it most of these are renewals? >> Correct. Both are renewals. >> Go ahead. >> I mean I guess I would just be careful even even just not putting out the contract with all
023the technical stuff, but even the quotation with the company name on it is probably something that maybe shouldn't be out there to know what services we're using. But um I would defer on that. >> Yeah. Mr. Spuzac, you want to weigh in? >> Yeah. The the agreement uh once it's made, the vendor is a public information uh because we can't, you know, cover up, you know, who we're doing business with for the public. Uh but again, the details uh and regarding of the contract would be private. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Member Hall. >> Thank you, Member Rose. Um, so what we're looking at right now and is who we're currently using. >> That's correct. And and we recommend a multi-year contract uh for about a $36,000 savings. >> Okay. And these two companies that we've
024been using have been doing what they need. Like have you ventured into looking at other companies or are we pleased with the work that this company is doing or are there other companies that may be able to do a little bit more at the same cost or >> both companies? I would I would say are industry leaders and they are a core part of our work and do meet our needs. Um >> Okay. Thank you. >> And of course answering with discretion is the reason why we have two companies for this purpose. >> There is there are two separate products or platforms. >> Um and they all have their own individual resellers. So ultimately the appropriate reseller has been selected. Um, >> okay. So that one contract could one of these vendors cannot do both
025functions. >> That's correct. >> And it is a cost savings of 30 >> 36,000. >> Okay. >> Um, >> very good. Any other questions by committee members or board members? Okay. Is there a motion to recommend both of these two contracts to be presented at in app in support or approval to the general membership meeting on February 23rd? So moved. >> I moved by member Montgomery. >> Second by member Hall. All in favor? >> I all opposed. Hearing none. We'll move on to the next item. So now are these the only contracts that have board member actions in March? These were the two that were brought to us. Uh there is a 4.03. Uh the next item regarding uh >> Yeah. And my question was making sure that there wasn't any other March contracts that
026we have to take action on because one question I had was I know that a month ago we brought up about like the director evaluations and decision- making and we would have to make a decision on our directors with 90 days notice whether we were moving forward or not with a contract in general and the auto renewal date I believe was June 1st. So 90 days would put that back into March 1st, which means 10 days. Were we was there any plan to present that to the board so we can make an evaluation or decision before March 1st? >> Are you talking about the personnel? >> Yes, we would like to bring that back. >> Okay. Excellent. So do we plan on having a discussion at the next general membership meeting? I'm assuming the details
027of that would be in an executive session. >> Correct. All right. Wonderful. And so could we get uh the information for any review whether it's the contracts or any files that we should be aware of maybe by Friday? >> Can we? >> Yes, we can do that. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh superintendent. Any questions from members? >> Okay. So, yeah, we'll go ahead and proceed with the request for van driver contract update. And so I think I don't know if it was director Folk wanted to give him maybe an update as to the status of this because we know this is a budget item that seems to be getting more and more inflated. So we just want to make sure we're getting to the bottom of it. Good evening members of the legal and contract
028committee. Um Mr. Jeros had asked us for some information and I'd like to share this with you at this time. Um, one of his questions was how do we know how Buckeye is billing us? And currently I could provided originally to him that we currently have two approved vendors supplying van transportation for APS eligible students. that is Buckeye Logistics and Templeton Transportation for the 2526 school year approved by the board at the meeting of 5272025. Both vendors are providing monthly invoices for their services listing and in that included is the listing band number, the driver name, the daily route as noted by the contract by transport type, the school location being serviced, the number of days being invoiced per route, and the total cost for each van being used for the monthly time period. Invoices
029are checked by the transportation staff for accuracy, comparing the student assignments per vendor with the start date and attendance by the assigned school. If a concern is noted, the vendor is contacted to make a correction. When finalized, that is then sent for payment to the APS accounts payable office in the treasures division. Did we know if they are operating under the contract or overcharging? Each vendor is currently operating under the contract as stated. I did want to provide that currently Buckeye Logistics is serving 996 students which is 79.43% of the population of van transported students as the vendor is designated as primary by the board's approval. And Templeton Transportation is currently servicing 258 students which is 20.57% of van transported students. The lowest cost per route during the 2425 term was $135 per route. The
030this increase for the 2526 school term to $220 per route following the action of the board on 527. This is an increase of $85 per route which occurs to a 63% increase over the previous year. There were three lower bid responses in the resolution with the lowest route co at the time costing $150 per route. APS had taken into consider consideration at the time the number of vans being offered for use by each vendor to service up to 1,400 students to the APS designations. The resolution presented a total of eight vendors being presented for approval listed by route with the cost lowest to highest in the resolution. The change that is to what was approved by the board on 527 to 25 meeting did not allow us to use the three lowest vendors. We were
031approved to use vendor responses from vendor number four and number five which were both Templeton and Buckeye in in the listing of eight. Approval of the Buckeye Logistics and Templeton Transportation at the 527 meeting does include two additional one-year terms that are were mutually agreed to by both parties at the cost rates provided by each vendor in the response to the RFP. Therefore, both both contracts are up for renegotiation in 2627. If the board wishes to renew the Buckeye contract for next year, it will need to notify Buckeye in writing by March 30th of its intention to do so. Per the agreement, the extension would be my mutual agreement between the parties. If the board wishes to renew the Templeton agreement, it will need to notify Templeton by June 30th. That's the information I can
032provide you at this time. >> Thank you. Any initial questions from members? >> Yeah, go ahead. Member Hall. >> Thank you, Mrs. Folk. Um, so quick question. Um, well, actually two questions. One question is how many drivers I'm trying to remember that contract back in May. Buckeye had like what was it? 108 drivers. It originally started out when it responded as 101 >> uh and and then it as we were working through the vetting process they did increase it to 118 but we did need a total of 200 vans to service 1,400 students at a full capacity of seven students per van. So therefore, we worked on the numbers to find, you know, as close as we could. The final resolutions to select Buckeye and Templeton with the vans that they both could add still
033would have not met 200 vans, but they are currently servicing well at this time. >> Okay. No, that's fine. I just wanted to remember the number. So, it was 118 for Buckeye. And how many um drivers was with Templeton? Originally they came in at 51 and by the time we vetted it came in at 68. So if you add the two numbers together it still did not meet the 200 vans that we needed to expect. But as I said they are both servicing us well at this time. >> Okay. And then one more question. So you said we needed to service 1,400 students, >> but by the numbers you gave with Buckeye 996 and with Templeton 258 comes out to be 1,254. >> That is the current amount as of yesterday when I was putting
034this together. We will have students come on and off all the way through the end of May. So we usually do end up servicing up to,400 students. And I'll give you an example. Some students will change schools. Some Tu students will leave the district. And then we will be given assignments from our sped department for students with IEP related requirements for tr transport. And we will uh then also be assigned new students for McKini Vento homeless. So this is a fluctuating amount almost on a daily basis. >> All right, just a few more questions. just giving my colleagues an opportunity. So, um, one question is when, um, when it's brought to the board to vote on like a student being transported out of the district, you know, and things like that. Um, if we already
035have this contract, why are we voting on um, new kind of like new contracts? So for instance, if there's a student, say for instance, I think this was given like if they're in Ravana, but they were Akran, but they chose to go to school in Ravana and we have to transport them. Are we using our van drivers to do that? And if so, why are why is that brought to the board to vote on again when we already have this contract? >> There's several different issues and I think we're kind of, you know, putting them together. What you are voting on at the board with a student listing is a parent contract for inability to transport and that is the listing that you vote because they are eligible to transport but we do not have
036the assets under one of the six uh designation that the law allows. So that's when when you do approve that particular listing and you recently did one on the 20 the last meeting of January, then that allows us to offer a contract to the family for them to receive the state stipen to do the transport themselves. In this case, for what our band uh persons do supply for with Buckeye and Templeton are are our students attending our schools basically under SPED or Mckin Vento or contracted uh assignments that may be awarded by a court. So we could have a student that as you said lives in Akran but the court has designated a specific school. I currently can tell you I have a student that by court order we have to take to Westlake. We
037also take students to the school of the blind in um and the school of the deaf in uh Columbus because that is their school of assignment and they reside here. So that's where we and they and either Buckeye or Templeton would be offered those contracts. >> Okay. And so final question, why don't we just put that all together in a contract instead of bringing that to the board to vote for those additional students? Why don't we just have since the van I'm sorry um Buckeye and Templeton are already doing that work getting them like to the to the blind center down in Columbus to a different district. Why don't we just lump that in where we don't have to bring that to the board all the time? >> Again, they're two different statutes. We are
038servicing students that require uh van transport for a IEP related service or McKinto designation. I understand they are doing that but the other ones are students who attend school stu uh schools out of our district but reside here and we do not have the assets to do it. It's a payment in lie because it's impractical to transport. That's what we are bringing to you each time when you are voting on that. >> So they might resign. >> Maybe I'll just have a separate conversation offline to kind of understand a little bit more because it's okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes, member Dr. Molnar. >> Thank you. Um Chair Dross, um I have I think just two questions. Um the first you mentioned that if um anything were going to change with the contract
039um with Buckeye or Templeton, we would need to the board would need to take action by March 30th. What would happen if nothing happened? >> Would anything change if nothing happened? >> Buckeye Buckeye's notice is March 30th. Templeton's is June 30th. If nothing happened and you did not mutually agree to do it, we would have to seek another process which could mean an RFP out again. >> Sorry. So to follow up, so if let's say the next time this committee meets is March 18th, if nothing happens on March 18th, then the whole process would start over again from >> scratch. Okay. So now if the committee did not want to start from scratch um what would that process look like? >> Then it would be our our legal council would work with us to open
040a mutually agreed to discussion regarding the contracts because the contracts have to be mutually agreed to in both instances. Would those discussions start with legal and the vendors or would those discussions be in a committee? >> They would start with legal consent and how deferred. >> So the Buckeye contract uh to your question Dr. Molinar if the district did nothing March 30th came and went. uh that contract then would not be renewed for the 2627 school year and the board would be able to renegotiate or enter into negotiations if it's mutually agreed upon by both parties uh for the Buckeye agreement. um for the Templeton agreement. Again, that's a June 30th renewal, excuse me, notice to Templeton. Uh and if again, the board did nothing and did not engage and indicate a renewal, um then
041that would not be effective in 2627 and the board would be able to go ahead and renegotiate, excuse me, agreements with those two vendors. Now, if the board decides it wants to explore, uh, as Deborah mentioned, uh, an RFP process would be in play as well for the board's consideration. >> Sorry. So, if if the not scratch from start from scratch option occurred, if the negotiation option occurred, would the board need to approve that negotiation and by when? >> Yeah. So obviously for the start of the next school year, uh the board would need to approve an agreement and agree to the terms of renewal with either or both of the vendors. >> Okay. >> Member Montgomery, >> I guess I'm confused as to how inaction of the board triggers renegotiation. How is the contract
042written? Because to me, non-renewal means it's done. I don't I don't understand. Right. The language says that the board would notify Buckeye by March 30th of its intent to renew for next year. So if the board does not notify Buckeye by March 30th, uh that time that day comes and goes and then there there's no renewal automatic renewal for the 26 27 year which would again then free the board to renegotiate or negotiate. >> I I I'm still not getting there. um by non-renew I I get the notice of intent to renew like I I get that but in the not the if we don't give that notification is there a provision either in the original RFP that went out that it was a multi like I don't understand how nonrenewing it allows us to
043renegotiate with the current vendor will we then have to trigger an automatic new RFP like I don't understand how just not telling them yes we're going to renew who triggers negotiations. >> Uh it says by mutual agreement of the parties in the in the contract for renewal. >> So wouldn't we want to do that negotiating before we decide whether or not we're going to renew? That's the board's decision is if it wants to proceed with the renewal, then it will send out a notice by March 30th to Buckeye and June 30th for Templeton and then enter into the discussions. So I >> the question was if the board does nothing that would be the effect but to your question if the board is interested in renewing the agreements then we will send out that notice
044by March 30th to Buckeye. >> Well how are we going to know whether or not we want to renew unless we know what the negotiated rate is going to like what the negotiated contract's going to be. I do we need to let it expire before we can open renegotiations. It would be a notice to renew and then again by mutual agreement of both parties discussions would take place. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Dr. Molnar. >> Just just to summarize, no matter what, the board will have to do something. >> That is correct. >> To have children driven to school next year. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, a few questions I had just about numbers here. So, what was the original budget set for? So, we have the official number.
045>> The original budget set for that began in February of 25 was $7 million. It has been adjusted to a little over 8 million at this point. >> So, that is what we're currently paying our current vendors with. >> And that's just van drivers. >> That is this is just van drivers. Just both contracts. That is correct. >> And so, we increased it a million dollars when we had a 62% increase. So, if we were going off of the $135 rate, the budget should have been $11,410 approximately to cover the additional $85 per route. >> That is correct. >> And is that the estimated expense that we will have >> in working with uh Treasurer Bowers? That is close to what we are expecting. So it is what we So based off of the increase
046it fits within what was expected because of the increase not additional unforeseen expenses. >> No that is correct. >> Now who sets the routes? Is it our district provides the routes? Do the vendors provide the routes? >> We provide them the students that we have and they actually determine how they will travel. We just say that Susie Brown is needing transport to Krauss and she is at this address. This is a very specific sheet that is provided to both vendors and then they determine how they travel. >> Okay. Do we know how many on average like each ride is? Like could there be two students in a route as opposed to I know like one to six is the $200 rate if you're within the district for a first time first route. Then there's 220
047if it's taking seven students. And so having two companies, is there a chance that there's two students in a van when there could be four or five in a van? >> It is very possible because we as a as a group do not know the students. We know the students uh school of assignment as determined by our sped department and our McKini Vento needs. >> Is there a way we can get that information from the vendors to make sure that we can verify moving forward what that looks like? Actually, we probably do have that already on their invoices and we have it also in the back sheet that are shared between transportation and the vendors. >> Okay. Excellent. Because I just want to make sure that we're being as efficient as possible because again, you
048know, taxpayer dollars. We want this is a necessity. We have to have driving for our kids, but we also want to make sure that if we have to budget appropriately, is it being most efficient? And so, those are some of my questions as we close out the year. Now, as the administration, do we see this as an issue that if we're going over a budget, do we see this as predictable? How is the administration's perspective on this item? >> Yeah. Yes. Go ahead, >> Chair D. Rose, could Rose, could you provide a little more rephrase it? >> Yeah. Thank you. So, the additional expense on this budget item going over approximately 3 million more, is this a concern for the district that we want to be urgently address or are we just letting it kind
049of finish out the year? Where's the urgency on getting to the bottom of these details? >> do you want to respond or you want me to respond? Mhm. >> I I think without question there's urgency uh when dollars are uh at stake here in Akran public school district especially given our current state um and certainly treasurer Bowers has spoken to that in his reports. >> Excellent. Any other questions for Director Faulk? Yes, Mr. Montgomery. So we say the original budget was 7 million >> and that was based over the past several years and we had padded you know not I don't want to say the word pad we had tried to account for what we thought it would be based on what we had seen prior to the actual award because budgets are as I
050said start in February and are planned and we got the approval on this particular uh two contracts at the May 27th meeting of 2025. >> But I guess what what what went into and I don't know if this is a split question between you and Treasurer Bowers, but what what went what inputs went into the estimate to come up? because I understand budgets start in February and we went off a trend, but a temporary budget and appropriation was passed in June and then an updated appropriation, final appropriation was passed in September >> and the numbers weren't updated based on the new contracts that were done in May. I I guess is the additional $4 million, you know, we say expected plans, I think it's a surprise that we're going to be $4 million over. So,
051I'm just curious as to what inputs were used, the number of riders, the number of routes, the new rate. Like, we knew the new rate at the end of May. We actually took it down to the cost per student per seat is how we were trying to do all the apples to apples. And then we started, so as an example, that $150 lowest route ended up with a cost of $25 and something. And then you went that's we we're doing that all the way through the eight responses we sent to the board. And therefore as we moved it through based on the number of vans they were offering to get to the 200 based on our 1400 number we were adding the next vendor down onto the list. When we got to a total of
052five vendors, we knew we would probably go ahead and do um a $1,400 200 van uh transport. And as we ran those numbers, we were within the budget that was originally planned. And then we started to receive the information. And to your question, our invoices started to come in mostly for the beginning of the first of the year. The first full month we had was um September's came in on October 1st. So we started to watch these numbers going through and we had advised people that this was much higher than we had experienced when we paid independent contracted V van drivers plus Templeton in the 2425 year which was a mixed year. We were the state wanted us to go to vendors that were not independent contracted vendors which is how this did. So we
053did one transition year of independent contractors and Templeton and then we put out the RFP and got 16 responses and we're re recommending eight and then the resolution was adjusted to employ currently Buckeye and Templeton at the board's approval. >> Okay. >> Yes. Member Hall. >> Okay. You when you made you made a comment about the state wanting us to go to >> Yes. >> Um I thought it was a recommendation from someone at the state. It wasn't mandatory. >> It was a letter that we received from the state of Ohio telling us that independent contracted van drivers were not a that was a liability and issue for the district and we needed to seek vendors. And that's where we started. As you remember, Miss Hall, I think you were here. >> I was here.
054No, no, no. I when we did the first RFP and Templeton came in at that point as the lead vendor and then we were asked to transition so we could get another year and that's why we had the independent band drivers along with Templeton for the 2425 school year. >> Yeah, that was 2024 when we first came in is when we talked about that and Yes. Yeah. And I remember the conversation of it wasn't mandatory but because someone from the state had informed APS >> Yes, that is correct. that >> they may want to go that way. I didn't think >> the liability was too much for the district to take it on as independent band drivers. >> Okay. And then one more question. Um you stated I remember looking at the the breakdown last
055year at the cost per student >> per seat, >> right? So if it was $25, I know I think Buckeye came in at like 2570 or something like that. >> Buckeye came in at 27 26 if I remember. But we still had uh Templeton and Buckeye were equal in their seat costs, but we had three vendors below that. >> Right. Um so my question is so when you say per seat per student at $25. So is that back and forth would have been like a total of $50. We went ahead and took the route that charged that each vendor had and tried to max it out at the total of seven per van because that was the max that they could do. >> No. So my I guess my question is so per student per
056seat we were looking at $25. Two ways going to school and going home that would have been I'm sorry one way each it's no it's it's the cost to do a student per day. So they would have gotten to school and gotten home >> For $25. That is correct. >> Okay. >> So even if we >> So then where do the routes come in at? At 135 to 220. >> That's how they bidded. They bidded a cost per route. In the scope of the RFP, we were looking for nine passenger units, you know, because we couldn't exceed that. and we were looking for a route cost. So each vendor, all 16 of us of them responded as a cost per route to do a route. So as an example, if I was >> I understand
057I understand. Yeah, I don't want to prolong much longer. No, that's fine. I was just trying to get the understanding from >> I remember just seeing numbers of 25 27 and all of that. I don't remember seeing per route. >> That was on the score sheet that was attached to the actual meeting of the 27th. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Molnar. >> So, to to follow up because I I appreciate all these questions, Member Hall. I I really do because I was here for this, too. Um, so am I hearing that some of the confusion in the budgeting that member Montgomery brought up might be because we were budgeting per student but the RFP was per route. So our request and our budget process were based on
058>> it could have been a little bit different and I acknowledge that. Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. So the only thing that my last question would be is what does the administration see as the next steps in this matter? >> Whoever would like to answer that. >> Uh I can't I won't provide legal advice in this forum. That will be uh you know confidential legally privileged uh advice on that comment unless superintendent has a uh response. Okay. Chair Gerros, at this time we are going to um seek to make sure there's an understanding amongst the board members regarding staying put and what the ramifications are or making a conscientious decision to move forward with renewal. of the contract. >> Okay. Do you know when that will likely be? Is
059that expected for the first meeting in March, the second meeting in March? Do we will will the board have time to reflect on the evidence provided and the recommendation? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, which meeting would we look to have that information by? >> March. >> Wait a minute. We have >> There's March 9th and March 23. That'd be March 9th. >> I would say we would prefer to go with March 9th so you can have it sooner than later. >> Very good. Thank you, Madam Superintendent. Thank you, Miss B. >> With We have about 5 minutes and or it's 5:26. I will give an opportunity because I realize I didn't include this on the agenda, a time for public comment. So, if there's some that would like to speak, that is okay. We try
060to keep it concise. I noticed there was a hand up that was interested in addressing the board. If so, feel free to come up to the podium. Introduce your please share your name and try to keep it under three minutes. Hi, I'm Brandy Vickers and this is Andrea Morton. As you can see, we're part of Buckeye Logistics. Um, there were just a few things that were a little confusing for me. Um, we only charge 220 for out of district students. Our normal rate for one to six students is $200 on a driver driving the first route. Um we offer a discount to the district for all drivers driving more than one route after whether you drive two through seven. Our rate is 150 for uh students at that point. Um and just to make it
061clear to the board, Buckeye did kind of object. We don't want anyone to lose their job. But in the same token, we knew that the district was in a financial situation. We were never at capacity. School started August 21st. Students were taken from us on September 5th and given to the supplemental vendor. Um, we did inquire about why the students have been taken because we were not at capacity or exhausted. And there was a board meeting on July 28th. We signed a contract on July 29th, but on July 28th, there was a board member, I think it was member Harrison who asked the director of business affairs if the primary vendor would be used until they were exhausted. The answer was yes. So, we were at the expectation that we were to be used until
062we were exhausted. So what we did as the company, we placed about four or five students in one van with the expectation of as students were added to not have to build the district for additional vans to leave those open seats. But the students were not given to us, they were given to someone else. So, that is how you guys got an extra bill because we're transporting 992 students or 996 I think they said. Um, when we were independent contractors, we were transporting about,00 students. We started out at 118 van drivers with Buckeye. We also had permission from the board and the superintendent to expand because I don't know if member Hall remembers, but she asked specifically, "Well, wait a minute. Don't they need 200 vans?" And we weren't there at that time. We're currently
063at 170 van drivers and we are confident that we could have drove all 1300 students without an additional vendor. >> I think you maybe about 30 seconds. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, just real quick, the budget should have also included what they were paying Templeton last year, which was the 200 >> 220. She said 135, but they're leaving out that part as well because she was getting that last year. Um, we were not at capacity as she said. And, um, we also notified business affairs when we noticed that we stopped getting students. we knew that this other vendor was adding students. We explained to her, "We still have room. Why create additional routes? Each additional route is more money. We tried to be proactive, just for the record." So, I I just want
064to make sure that's understood. And we still have vans, all of our vans are not at capacity because from September 5th to December, Buckeye did not receive students as they should have. They were all going to the other vendor and it wasn't necessary. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Over that. Is there anything else need needing to be brought up by the committee? >> Thank you. Motion to adjourn by member Montgomery. Is there a second? Second. >> All right. All in favor? I. All right. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone.