Milford board keeps contractor in place, approves levy planning after long transportation debate

The Milford Exempted Village Board of Education on March 21 decided to continue contracting with Peterman for student transportation while moving forward with formal levy planning to shore up district finances.

In a lengthy presentation and public-comment period, Treasurer John Espy summarized three iterations of an in‑house busing proposal and said a revised version showed roughly $1.7 million in annual reductions under certain assumptions. Espy and other administrators warned the board that the savings in draft plans depended on assumptions about route consolidation, low entry-level wage steps, and no severance or workers’ compensation exposure tied to rehiring drivers.

The debate stretched through community feedback gathered in a two‑week “thought exchange” that drew nearly 1,900 participants and showed strong concerns about safety, working‑parent impacts and start times. Krista Boyle presented the results, citing top themes of safety, scheduling impact on working parents, and interest in administrative cost savings.

Superintendent Spicer told the board he was not recommending immediate changes to secondary start times and urged the board to keep the status quo while Peterman models additional scenarios, including what a 9:00 a.m. secondary start would look like.

Public commenters supplied contrasting perspectives: some urged the board to consider bringing busing in‑house to save money and preserve classroom positions; others warned that consolidating routes could mean longer ride times for students and possible safety tradeoffs. “If sleeping less than eight hours is associated with an increased risk of suicide in teenagers, is it really worth saving the district money to change the start time to 7:15?” parent Jennifer Zent asked during public comment.

After staff reviewed financial forecasts comparing two levy pathways, the board voted to approve a resolution of necessity to proceed with levy planning. Administration presented two primary options in the motion: a 1% earned‑income tax and a 5.99‑mill operating levy. Espy’s modeling showed the 1% earned‑income tax kept the district on a more stable five‑year trajectory in the forecast used by staff; the 5.99‑mill option extended resources for a shorter projected period.

The roll‑call vote on the resolution of necessity was unanimous: Wilson, Will, Powers, Mason and President Chestnut all voted yes.

The board also approved related consent items during the meeting (multi‑year curriculum licenses, contracts for cybersecurity and phone services, and several construction change orders) and directed staff to continue refining transportation scenarios with Peterman, including routing, capacity and safety constraints. Officials said any future decision to bring busing in‑house would require more detailed, district‑specific analysis on routing software, fleet acquisition, employee step increases, and severance obligations.

Next steps: administrators will continue modeling scenarios with Peterman, pursue public education about levy options, and bring back additional financial modeling and routing data for future board consideration.