FOSSTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT board approves three‑year contract with Superior Transportation after detailed cost and service discussion

The FOSSTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT board approved a three‑year contract with Superior Transportation to provide student‑transport services for the 2026–27 through 2028–29 school years following a recommendation from the district’s transportation committee.

The transportation committee told the board it had solicited proposals and received submissions from Superior and from Stein (Stein busing). Committee members said they modeled the district’s recent route costs and presented comparative numbers to the board: they cited the district’s 2025–26 transportation total as $73,921 and read a Superior proposal of $699,150, and described that Superior figure as roughly $4,000 less than what the district spent last year. The committee acknowledged the spreadsheet and packet figures used in that comparison and responded to board questions about assumptions and line‑item calculations.

Joe Seaffort, representing Superior Transportation, addressed the board and described operational details the company would bring if selected. "We'd like to buy all of your buses, vans, suburbans," he said, outlining options for an appraisal and either a lump‑sum payment or a contract credit spread over time. Seaffort said Superior would modernize portions of the fleet, keep spare buses on hand, and supply drivers and mechanics. He also described how the company can onboard local volunteers or coaches as paid drivers under Superior’s insurance and testing program to reduce district liability and provide cost savings.

Board members pressed on specific contract clauses and contingencies. Administrators and the vendor explained a fuel‑index clause built into the contract: for gasoline, a threshold of $3.75 per gallon (and $4.25 per gallon for diesel) would trigger a 50/50 split of any costs above those indices; below those thresholds, Superior would absorb fuel costs. The vendor said its costs are typically discounted from pump prices and that, in its experience, fuel costs at the levels seen recently would not require district cost sharing.

The company and administration also discussed special‑education transportation and the McKinney‑Vento (homelessness) transportation rules as potential cost drivers. Administrators noted that many special‑education routes are eligible for high state reimbursement (the staff said roughly 90% reimbursement for certain IEP‑required transports) but that new or changing student needs can add unplanned costs.

The board also discussed use of the district’s bus garage. Superior proposed a nominal lease (described in the service agreement as $1) under which the company would pay utilities and minor maintenance; administrators told the board the garage lease terms are incorporated into the service agreement and that the vendor’s access to the facility would be tied to holding the transportation contract.

After extended questions from board members about service levels, spare equipment, camera/GPS capabilities and how extracurricular and field‑trip mileage would be handled, a motion to approve the Superior proposal was made and seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote (the transcript records the motion carrying but does not record a numeric roll‑call tally).

What happens next: administrators and the vendor will finalize contract paperwork, reconcile the appraisal/vehicle‑purchase approach if the district elects to sell vehicles to Superior, and confirm the lease paperwork for garage use that the board discussed during the item. The board’s procurement decision limits district exposure to route staffing shortages by outsourcing day‑to‑day transportation operations to the contractor, subject to the contract’s fuel clause and reimbursement rules for special‑education transports.

Representative quotes: "We'd like to buy all of your buses, vans, suburbans," Joe Seaffort told the board. On fuel, the vendor summarized the clause to the board: "Anything over 3.75 we split, right?"