Tallmadge City Schools in Ohio is eliminating transportation for hundreds of high school students this school year as the district works to reduce costs amid funding concerns and a series of failed levies, reported ABC 5.
According to the news report, Superintendent Steve Wood said the district will no longer provide transportation for any high school students, leaving about 800 students without bus routes. Elementary and middle school students who live within two miles of their schools will also be ineligible for district transportation.
The changes reportedly return the district to Ohio’s minimum transportation requirements. State law requires school districts to transport students in kindergarten through eighth grade who live more than two miles from their schools.
Wood acknowledged that the reductions could create difficulties for families and said via the article that the district is taking steps to ease the transition. Schools will adjust their arrival and dismissal procedures to accommodate an expected increase in vehicles during student drop-off and pick-up periods.
Wood is reportedly discussing possible transportation options with Akron METRO Regional Transit Authority, which operates a bus route through Tallmadge. It remains unclear whether the public transit service could provide a workable alternative for affected students.
According to the article, district officials hope to restore the eliminated transportation services next school year. However, Wood warned that continued funding reductions could prevent the district from doing so and lead to additional cuts.
“The reality is tough,” Wood said via the report. “This is a cost-cutting spiral, and if we don’t receive additional funds for next year, it just gets uglier. It means more teachers out. It means more electives gone. More academic opportunities are gone and less clubs.”
The transportation reductions mark the district’s second round of budget cuts. Tallmadge eliminated teaching and administrative positions last school year and cut additional teaching positions this year. The district also increased its pay-to-play fee for student activities.
Another funding levy will reportedly appear on the November ballot. Instead of seeking a property tax based on home values, the district is proposing an earned income tax based on residents’ wages. Wood said additional revenue will be critical to preventing further reductions to staffing, academic programs, extracurricular activities and transportation services.
RENO, Nev. — School districts nationwide are opening the new school year with less money for student transportation, and three sessions at STN EXPO West challenged directors to change how and to whom they make their case for resources.
Ryan Hahn of Strategic School Consultants presented back-to-back sessions, “Budgeting in Uncertain Times: Navigating the Fiscal Cliff Without Losing Ground” on July 12 and “Advocating for Resources: How to Get a Seat at the Table Before the Cuts Are Already Made” on July 13. Another session presented later during STN EXPO West on July 14 by Tim Purvis focused on using AI to help with budgeting decisions.
Hahn started as a school bus driver in college 26 years ago and went on to direct transportation, maintenance and operations for districts in Washington state and Oregon. He earned a chief business official certification through California’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), served as chief financial officer of a 25,000-student Washington district, and now owns Strategic School Consultants.
Federal pandemic relief is spent, Hahn said, and districts that used that one-time money to fund recurring positions are paying for it now. Add inflation, fuel volatility and liability costs — he said insurance at his former district rose 150 percent in 10 years — and operations departments are absorbing across-the-board reduction targets.
“Every operational unit is going to have to cut 10 percent of their budget,” Hahn said, describing a conversation he said is playing out across the country. “You cannot defer a bus ride.”
His central argument was that transportation directors lose budget fights before the budget is built. Most, he said, live entirely in an operational network — covering routes, filling trips, solving problems — and never develop the personal and strategic networks that determine who and what gets funded.
“Your value as the leader of the unit dictates what you get in your unit, every single time,” he said.
That means lateral and vertical relationships with principals, executive directors and the superintendent, not just the CFO. It also means translating requests into the language cabinet members already use. Hahn told attendees to find their board’s adopted strategic goals and tie every ask to one of them.
He urged directors to request a copy of their district’s position control, the roster of every funded position with wages, steps and employer-paid benefits. Staffing consumes 86 percent to 90 percent of a transportation budget, he said, yet many directors have never seen the document. Districts resist adding lines to position control because it shifts staffing ratios districtwide, he said, so directors who need to pilot a new function should ask instead for substitute dollars or contracted services, which are treated as temporary expenses.
Hahn also warned that efficiency can be punished in reimbursement states. After cutting roughly $1 million in overtime at an Oregon district, he said, his CFO called him into a meeting but not to thank him. The savings reduced the following year’s reimbursement. He was told to spend the money on purchasing new buses.
Funding models differ sharply, he noted. Oregon reimburses roughly 70 cents on the dollar. California reimburses about 60 percent of eligible operating costs but excludes capital purchases such as school buses. Washington funds based on ridership, routes and destinations and maintains a vehicle replacement fund, though the legislature recently extended the replacement cycle from 13 years to 15.
On electric school buses, Hahn advised directors to follow board priorities but to be candid about range and infrastructure limits. Remaining grant money, he added, generally requires an older diesel bus as a trade-in. He cautioned against buying every technology product from a single vendor.
“It costs a lot to get divorced and remarried to another product,” he added.
Deferred maintenance was a recurring theme. Directors should cost out preventive maintenance cycles, track fuel economy and failures by brand, and bring trend data, not feelings, to the business office. Hahn told the room not to volunteer training and conference dollars when cuts are demanded.
For advocacy beyond the district, he recommended working through state school business and transportation associations rather than lobbying independently and aligning with the National Association for Pupil Transportation where interests match.
Consultant Ryan Hahn discusses the necessary budget language student transporters must know to become better negotiators with district administrators on July 12, 2026 at STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada. (Photo by Ryan Gray)
In a separate session, Purvis, principal and founder of consultancy Pupil Transportation Information and a former California director of transportation with four decades in the industry as well as a California FMCAT member, walked attendees through using artificial intelligence in budget decision-making. His message: AI is a tool, not a decision maker, and its value depends almost entirely on the prompt and the data behind it. And, of course, verify the result.
Purvis demonstrated a case study built from an actual client — 58 approved driver positions with 12 vacancies, 20 general education routes, 30 special education routes, an aging fleet and rising overtime. His actual prompt ran more than two pages. The output flagged driver vacancies as the leading cost driver, projected expenditures rising from $4.8 million to $5.8 million over four years, and recommended stabilizing labor before expanding the fleet. It also provided bell schedule optimization, which Purvis called one of the largest budget levers after labor, without being prompted.
The three-year projection, he said, is what secured the school district with a fully funded vehicle replacement schedule.
He cautioned against uploading a proposed budget that has not been adjusted midyear, said inaccurate data should be left out entirely, and warned that student identifiers routinely appear in routing exports sent outside the district. Once uploaded to an AI system, he said, it cannot be recalled.
“Verify all calculations,” Purvis said. “We’re human, we make mistakes.”
Article written with the assistance of AI and session transcripts.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., talks to a reporter in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
Wisconsin Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson was named chairman of the Senate budget committee Tuesday, taking up a position left vacant after the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham earlier this month.
Johnson was the fourth highest ranking Republican on the committee, but received the chairmanship because Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) already chair the Judiciary and Finance committees and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is on his way out of the Senate after losing his May primary.
In a statement, Johnson called Graham an “American patriot” and said he’ll “be sorely missed.” He added that he wants to focus on exposing fraud in government.
“As chairman for the remainder of the year, I intend to maximize this opportunity to define the fiscal challenge we face, help expose the fraud in government programs, and work with the House, the White House, and my Senate colleagues to enact as much of President Trump’s agenda as possible,” Johnson said.
Republicans in Congress are currently attempting to pass a third budget reconciliation bill of the term before November’s midterm elections — with a focus on providing the Department of Defense with more funds for the war in Iran, further cutting government benefit programs and passing the SAVE America act to put more restrictions on voting.
A Johnson spokesperson previously told the Wisconsin Examiner that he would “work diligently” to pass a reconciliation bill.
OMB Director Russ Vought testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Jan. 15, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)
A federal judge ruled late last week that the Trump administration had acted illegally last summer when it cut millions in federal grant money.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in the District of Massachusetts ruled on Friday that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget does not have the authority to revoke grants on a whim. OMB had argued that a line in the federal regulations gave the White House authority to cancel grants to account for shifts in priorities.
Talwani found that the agency couldn’t cancel grants to achieve priorities that were announced after the grants had been awarded.
Wisconsin was joined by 22 other states and Washington D.C. in filing a lawsuit against OMB pulling back grant funds. The Wisconsin Department of Justice noted in a press release that the state had lost tens of millions of dollars in federal grant funding meant to help provide Wisconsin-grown food to local food banks, modernize the state’s unemployment system and fund research at UW-Madison.
“The Trump administration has been recklessly attempting to slash funding that supports important programs,” said Attorney General Josh Kaul. “This decision shuts down an unlawful avenue that the Trump administration was using to try to impose those cuts.”
Democrats in Congress are raising questions about a draft rule proposed by the Trump administration that would change the way grants, such as those by the National Institutes of Health, are administered. Shown is an NIH Pediatric Oncology Branch researcher's lab jacket, embroidered with the NIH logo. (Photo courtesy NIH)
WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are pushing back against a proposed Trump administration rule introduced by the Office of Management and Budget that would substantially change the way federal grants are reviewed and distributed.
Over the past few weeks, several groups of lawmakers have written public comment letters to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought expressing strong opposition to the new draft rule, which would give political appointees the power to decide what institutions receive grant funding, among other revisions.
A summary of the rule cites the Biden administration as to why it is needed. “Federal awards were often used during those years to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public,” it says, pointing to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies.
Democrats said the proposal exceeds the office’s authority, will make it harder for grant recipients to carry out funding priorities established by Congress and would turn federal grants into a tool for President Donald Trump to “unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals.”
The draft rule would allow Trump to “terminate or suspend any grant at any time for any reason and without any notice,” they said.
“Ultimately, these changes will make it harder for grant recipients to apply for and manage federal funds – undermining public safety, public health, economic competitiveness, and the government’s ability to address rising costs,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in their July 1 letter to Vought.
Maryland Democrats in Congress and members of the Congressional Community Safety Caucus, led by Reps. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, LaMonica McIver of New Jersey and Gabe Amo of Rhode Island, also wrote letters urging OMB to rescind its proposed new rule.
Hundreds of billions in funds affected
The more than 100-page draft rule, published in collaboration with 41 other federal grant-making agencies on May 29 and titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” would change the framework used to evaluate grant applications as well as guidelines for cost sharing.
It would potentially affect hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding at universities, nonprofit organizations and other U.S. institutions, according to SciLine, an independent nonprofit service for journalists and scientists run out of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Under the proposed rule, federal grants could not be used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” DEI initiatives.
Awards would also in many cases have to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities,” and agencies would be allowed to cancel funding that is “not effective at achieving program goals or Federal agency priorities” or “no longer in the Federal Government’s interest.”
“The overarching goal of OMB’s proposed revisions is to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for how Federal taxpayer dollars are used in the context of Federal grantmaking,” according to the executive summary of the rule.
OMB officials say they could implement the new draft rule as early as Oct. 1.
Community violence intervention programs
During the public comment period for the draft rule, which ran from May 29 to July 13, congressional Democrats slammed its vague language and the implications it holds for many institutions that rely on federal funds.
Maryland’s senators and Democratic representatives in their July 10 letter to Vought denounced the rule for changing a process traditionally based on merit. “The federal grantmaking process includes essential, non-political guardrails that this rule seeks to eviscerate,” they wrote.
They also said the proposed rule contains a slew of new undefined standards for grants, including that they must adhere to “gold standard science” and cannot reflect “anti-American values,” that recipients may not be able to understand or comply with.
Maryland institutions, often known as hubs for scientific research and innovation, have been hit hard by National Institutes of Health funding cuts and mass federal layoffs since Trump began his second term in 2025. Local governments and schools that receive federal funds have also taken blows, as has the state’s overall economy.
In their July 13 letter, members of the Congressional Community Safety Caucus voiced concerns over how the draft rule could specifically affect community violence intervention programs.
Community violence intervention programs, local efforts that have been linked to drops in violent crime rates in cities across the country, rely on federal grants for “state and local government investments, hospital partnerships, philanthropy, and research support,” according to the lawmakers’ letter.
The new draft rule, they wrote, would jeopardize the operation of these programs by allowing Trump administration officials to “withhold, suspend, or terminate grants, or change terms and conditions mid-implementation, forcing grantees to operate in a tumultuous environment.”
The administration has already made cuts to parts of the Office of Justice Programs, further limiting the funds available to community violence intervention programs.
Other responses
Though opposition to the proposed rule is mainly coming from Democratic lawmakers, some bipartisan criticism regarding the rule’s broad scope and fast timeline exists.
Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, on July 6 asked Vought to extend the proposal’s public comment period at least 90 days and “withdraw portions of the rule that would potentially harm small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.”
“While I agree these principles should guide the administration and oversight of Federal funds, the rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients … and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process,” she wrote.
OMB did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on lawmaker pushback to the proposed rule. But Vought took to social media last month to express his view of the opposition.
“The freakout by those on the Left subsidized by taxpayer funds over OMB’s update of the regulation governing federal grant making tells you how important it is to keep the bureaucracies from leaking out spending that is woke, wasteful, and contra to the policies of the Trump Administration thru the NGOs,” he wrote.
Will costs keep going up for school transportation operations in the 2026-2027
school year? It depends. Several factors impacted this past year’s school transportation budget, and the most notable line-item increase was likely to your fuel costs.
New school district budgets are rolling out this month for most operations, and I’ve been told that transportation department budgets remained flat or down in most cases. What is going to change if you don’t take action to defend against future fuel volatility? More cuts? Ugh.
I recently spoke with an executive at a private school bus contractor, who was surprised to learn that school districts rarely use fuel hedging. He explained that the strategy helps create more predictable costs and protects his company and customers from sudden fuel price swings.
A transportation director I spoke with described fuel hedging as gambling, but I see it differently. It’s a practical way to manage costs and reduce budget uncertainty. While fuel prices can rise or fall, recent trends suggest increases are more likely than decreases.
School districts should consider this strategy because fuel price volatility directly threatens core operations and educational priorities in a way that private companies can often pass on to customers. Recent years have shown districts scrambling, consolidating routes, dipping into reserves, deferring maintenance or fleet purchases, or cutting programs, when diesel fuel spikes.
Hedging treats fuel cost risk like insurance: You pay a premium (in the form of potential opportunity cost or fees) for protection against worst-case scenarios. For entities with predictable, high-volume consumption like school buses, it aligns well with annual budgeting cycles.
Will fuel volatility change the way school transportation operators consider purchasing new school buses? I predict we will see higher consideration for alternative fuels like propane and electric instead of diesel or gasoline.
Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District in the Houston, Texas area—the largest school bus operation in the state—has no current plans to purchase diesel school buses as it focuses on propane and electric, said Bobby Williams, assistant director of transportation for fleet maintenance.
According to an STN readership survey of 636 subscribers conducted in April, respondents indicated purchase intent of new diesel buses, engines and components at 26 percent, new gasoline buses at 11 percent and new alternative fuel buses and infrastructure (propane, electric, CNG) at 10 percent.
The school bus and larger commercial truck industry will need to adjust to the EPA’s 2027 heavy-duty emissions rule that tightens nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions limits. The EPA is expected to release its revised final rule this month to address increased production costs tied to major engineering redesigns and, more specifically, warranty costs.
The EPA is also expected to announce the return of the five-year, $5-billion Clean School Bus Program, which has been on hiatus since January of last year. The agency indicated in an RFI published earlier this year that it was considering adding biodiesel and renewable diesel as fundable fuel types.
Another tactic to address rising fuel costs is the use of technology. Have you leveraged artificial intelligence (AI), data analytics and your routing software partners to help? AI-powered routing software analyzes traffic, weather, construction, and student address data to create the most efficient, fuel-saving routes. The integration of onboard tablets allows for turn-by-turn directions
and student manifests. These systems adapt in real time, helping buses avoid delays and improve on-time performance. These systems help cut fuel use, reduce
emissions and improve operational costs.
Fleets should consider utilizing more data-driven decision making in their operations. AI platforms collect and analyze transportation data to identify trends, inefficiencies and improvement opportunities. Dashboards visualize everything from ridership to route efficiency to behavior incidents, helping administrators make informed decisions. Improved operations, better budgeting and resource allocation, and stronger alignment with academic goals. By leveraging AI and emerging technologies, school districts are turning the daily commute into a strategic asset.
The road to and from school can be a dynamic, data-rich and fuel-consuming journey, but it’s all mission critical for any school transportation operation. Economic hardships force us to adapt and transform the outcomes should enhance performance, safety and empower transportation teams with the tools they
need to succeed in the future.
I recommend considering fresh ideas and leaning on your business partners as you look towards the 2026-2027 school year and beyond.
Editor’s Note: As reprinted from the July 2026 issue of School Transportation News.
A 2023-25 budget provision granting a sales tax exemption to data centers was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in July 2023.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau said in March that the tax break will cost the state more than $2 billion in sales tax revenue, mostly from massive data centers in Beaver Dam, Port Washington and Mount Pleasant. When the budget was approved in July 2023, hyperscale data centers were so new the fiscal bureau didn’t estimate how much an exemption would affect state tax collections.
While the high cost has drawn scrutiny, the incentive was originally designed to drive economic growth. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 38 states offer tax incentives on data centers.
Wisconsin has about 50 data centers, largely in the Milwaukee and Madison areas.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
A potential Republican budget reconciliation package would provide up to $60 billion for the Department of Defense. Shown is an aerial view of the Pentagon. (Photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brittany A. Chase/Department of Defense)
WASHINGTON — Republicans on the U.S. House Budget Committee approved their budget resolution Thursday, marking one small step forward in the complicated process that could allow the party to enact a third party-line bill.
The 20-14 vote followed hours of debate over amendments from Democrats that sought to roll back pieces of the earlier Republican packages and change how the upcoming process would work. None of the Democratic changes were approved.
House Republican leaders are likely to bring the budget resolution to the floor next week before that chamber leaves for its five-week August recess, now expected July 23.
The Senate will be in session for an additional two weeks after that before beginning its summer break, though it isn’t clear if GOP leadership in that chamber will bring the budget measure up for a vote.
Process to provide funds for defense, farms
Both chambers of Congress must adopt a budget resolution in order to unlock the budget reconciliation process that will allow them to move another bill without Democratic support.
House Republicans said during committee debate they hope another package would provide up to $95 billion. That currently unreleased measure would bolster aid to farmers, provide more funding to the Defense Department and implement pieces of a voter identification bill they’ve dubbed the SAVE America Act.
“We are going to use reconciliation to make a run at doing what we think will save this country for our children’s future and for the remainder of this century,” Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said. “I can’t think of a more important thing to work on.”
Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle, ranking member on the committee, criticized Republicans for not focusing on how to make life more affordable for everyday Americans.
“Over the last 18 months, we have seen where Republicans’ priorities are: trillions of dollars in tax cuts for billionaires, tens of billions of dollars for war and absolutely nothing for the American people,” Boyle said.
Democratic changes rebuffed
Democrats offered more than a dozen amendments during debate, including one from Vermont Rep. Becca Balint that would have removed the instructions for the Armed Services Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Republicans’ budget resolution, once approved by both chambers, would allow the Armed Services Committee to spend up to $60 billion and the Intelligence panel to spend up to $13 billion.
“My colleagues use the deficit as a pretext to excuse increasing hunger and deepening poverty in this country,” Balint said. “They preach fiscal responsibility, and yet, when it comes to approving tens of billions of dollars in additional Pentagon spending, they are a rubber stamp.”
Michigan Republican Rep. Jack Bergman spoke against the proposal, saying the additional defense funding “is necessary to support our troops and supply them with the munitions and anything else they need to fight, win and return home safely.”
In addition to providing instructions for more defense spending, the budget resolution would allow the Agriculture Committee to write a bill that would provide up to $12 billion in additional aid to farmers.
The Administration Committee would be able to spend up to $10 billion, likely to create a grant program for states that institute voter identification requirements.
July 15, 2024 Milwaukee, Wisconsin: U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson speaks on day one of the 2024 Republican National Convention. (Photo by Joeff Davis)
Wisconsin Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson is set to take up the gavel as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee following the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) — giving Johnson significant sway over federal spending decisions as President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans push to pass a third budget bill before this fall’s midterm elections.
Johnson, the fourth most senior Republican on the budget committee, is in line to get the position because Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) already chair the Judiciary and Finance committees and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is on his way out of the Senate after losing his May primary.
In a statement, Johnson’s office said he would focus on working with the House and White House to determine what is possible to include in a budget reconciliation bill in the limited time before November.
“Senator Johnson supports drafting and passing Reconciliation 3.0, and he will work diligently with all the relevant parties in the Senate, House, and White House to determine what is possible to achieve,” Johnson spokesperson Grace Carnathan said.
The push for a third reconciliation bill includes Trump’s proposed $350 billion in additional money for the Pentagon during the ongoing war in Iran. Johnson also said he’s working with Wisconsin Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil to sidestep the filibuster and push through the SAVE America Act, imposing new restrictions on voting, through the budget reconciliation process, Politico reported.
Johnson told the outlet that despite not officially having the gavel yet, he’s working to get ready for the job.
“I’ve already met with Lindsey’s staff this afternoon,” he said Monday about picking up where Graham’s effort left off.
Since being elected to the Senate for the first time in 2010, Johnson has promoted an image of himself as a budget hawk devoted to shrinking the size of the federal government. He’s also regularly supported Republican tax cut bills while using his platform to spread his anti-vaccine beliefs, climate change denial and support for Republican conspiracy theories about election administration.
“Johnson is likely to do as much as he can to cut government spending in the remaining months of 2026,” Barry Burden, a professor of political science at UW-Madison, told the Examiner. “His party is very likely to lose control of the House and possibly the Senate, ending the opportunity to use the streamlined budget reconciliation process to enact cuts when the new Congress is seated in early 2027.”
Burden added that Johnson will “probably be more aggressive” about reducing federal spending, adding restrictions on voting and expanding the healthcare cuts made in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
“Without a reelection of his own to worry about in Wisconsin, Johnson has the freedom to devote himself to being a budget warrior in the waning days of the Republican trifecta,” Burden said.
In recent months, Johnson has endorsed calls from some Republicans and Trump to end the Senate’s filibuster rules, which require that non-budget legislation receive 60 votes to pass, in order to push through the SAVE America Act. Johnson said at the Republican Party of Wisconsin convention in May that Republicans should nix the filibuster now to preempt Democrats doing so if and when they get control of Congress and the White House.
Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat, said in a statement she hopes Johnson uses the role to help Wisconsinites rather than focusing on slashing government services.
“Senator Ron Johnson and the budget committee greenlit the biggest cut to Medicaid and food assistance in history, all while increasing the national debt by $3.4 trillion over the next decade,” Baldwin said. “Now that he’s poised to take the gavel, I hope he will use this opportunity to deliver for the people of Wisconsin and help lower their costs moving forward – not deliver more cuts to Wisconsinites’ health care or spend more on this war in Iran.”
Jeff Mandell, general counsel of the voting rights focused firm Law Forward, said that given Johnson’s history of advocacy for harsh restrictions on voting and on behalf of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, putting him in control of the budget committee is alarming.
“The Save Act would interfere with long-standing and well functioning election laws in Wisconsin leading to disenfranchisement of Wisconsin voters,” Mandell said.
Summer break is upon us but student transporters are already ramping up for the new school year amid financial challenges. Plus, the June issue of School Transportation News magazine is out, and a camera caught a scary illegal passing incident that injured a student in Florida.
Ryan Hahn, owner of Strategic School Consultants and a former transportation director, sheds light on current school district financial hardships, creative and collaborative operational strategies, and his upcoming sessions on the topic at STN EXPO West this July.
About 54 percent of the 188 school districts that responded to the survey, conducted the week of May 4, said they are paying 6 percent more for diesel since the Iran war started. Fourteen percent reported that diesel costs are running 20 percent or more over budget. Meanwhile, 22 percent have seen their fuel bills increase by 11- to 20 percent over budget and 20 percent said they are 6- to 10 percent over budget.
“The data suggests that many districts have, to date, prioritized limiting impacts on core instructional programs, instead relying on strategies such as route optimization, deferred maintenance and targeted spending adjustments,” NAPT said in an email Monday to members. “While some districts report fuel costs exceeding planned amounts, the overall approach reflects a deliberate effort to manage rising expenses while maintaining stability in educational services.”
Nearly two-thirds of the districts said they are absorbing the rising diesel prices within their current transportation budgets, as their states do not provide dedicated transportation funding that rises with fuel prices. Over 30 percent said they are transferring funds from other district programs, 19 percent are using rainy-day funds, and 15 percent have yet to cover the increased costs.
Consolidating routes/adjusting route efficiency is the leading response to reducing the impact of rising diesel costs, according to 40 percent of the responses. Other operational changes are enforced anti-idling procedures at 27 percent, reducing the number of routes at 25 percent, limiting non-required bus trips (20 percent), and changing fuel purchasing practices at 14 percent. Other responses are increasing walk-to-stop ratios (8 percent), moving away from “yellow bus to non-diesel vehicles” (7 percent), meaning either school buses, vans, SUVs or sedans, an AASA spokesperson clarified for School Transportation News, and negotiating contracts with transportation vendors (6 percent).
Dipping Into Other Programs to Pay for Diesel
Meanwhile, 55 percent of the districts reported that they have yet to implement offsets in their current general budgets to address the fuel price hikes, and 17 percent said they have so far avoided making cuts through the reliance on rainy-day funds. But of those that have, 16 percent have deferred maintenance/facilities work, 13 percent reduced support personnel, 13 percent trimmed administrative staff/spending, and 12 percent reduced summer instruction. Less than 5 percent selected one of the following: Reduced instructional staff; increased class sizes; delayed instructional improvement initiatives; cut extracurricular programs; and cut spending on instructional materials.
While 52 percent of districts said they have yet to address budget cuts or they are still in development, one-third have added a contingency or reserve fund to address fuel volatility. Another 16 percent have negotiated contracts or adjusted vendor terms. Fourteen percent have drawn down reserves, and 10 percent have sought local/state revenue specific to transportation.
To address the next school year’s budget, 37 percent said they are likely to use reserve or rainy-day funds, while 36 percent said they are not sure what their plan will be. Thirty percent are considering cutting athletic/extracurricular transportation, and 29 percent would defer maintenance and facilities. Foregoing professional development or consulting services, or technology purchases and replacements, came in at 22 percent of responses, respectively. Fourteen percent said they could skip purchasing supplies, materials and textbooks next year, and 6 percent said they would pause instructional staffing and programming.
Despite higher initial purchase costs, alternative-fuel school buses are providing relief at the pump. Bibb County School District near Macon, Georgia is tapping into about $1 million in savings a year from less expensive propane school bus fueling and maintenance to pay for its few dozen gasoline-powered school buses. Director of Transportation Anthony Jackson, who presented the findings earlier this month at ACT Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada, told School Transportation News his staff has not purchased diesel fuel since February.
While some districts are still waiting for the promise of electric buses to catch up to reality, others are already reaping the benefits of cleaner, more cost-effective school transportation right now.
Across the country, more than 1,000 school districts are turning to propane autogas buses and seeing the benefits firsthand: healthier rides for students, happier drivers behind the wheel, and real cost savings that make a difference in the classroom. From public health experts to veteran drivers and transportation directors, those closest to the issue see how propane autogas is transforming student transportation for the better.
Healthier Rides and Cleaner Communities
For districts looking to make an immediate impact on air quality and student health, propane autogas buses are a smart choice. Compared with diesel, propane autogas reduces nitrogen oxides (NOx) by up to 96 percent and virtually eliminates particulate matter (PM). These pollutants contribute to asthma, respiratory issues, and other serious health concerns. By cutting emissions in the neighborhoods, school parking lots, and bus stops where children are most exposed, propane autogas can improve air quality.
Bailey Arnold, director of healthy air solutions for the American Lung Association (ALA), shared on a recent School Transportation News (STN) webinar why acting now, with proven technology like propane autogas, matters more than ever.
“Doing something today is really vital in the fight to combat all these climate change impacts that we’re seeing,” Arnold said. “When you can’t breathe, nothing else matters. So, anything we can do to lower emissions is going to benefit our health.”
In addition to reducing NOx and PM, Arnold emphasized that the cumulative effects of carbon output are significant and avoidable. According to NASA, CO2 emissions can remain in the atmosphere for 300 to 1,000 years. Arnold also pointed to information from Clean Fuels Alliance America that found that every five years of delay in introducing cleaner options requires reducing 13 times the emissions in the future.
That’s why it’s important to start today. Propane autogas reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by more than 24 percent compared with diesel, and renewable propane cuts that even further, reducing emissions by up to 80 percent depending on the feedstock. That means over a 10-year lifespan, a single renewable propane autogas school bus can cut carbon emissions by 1,600 tons compared with diesel.
“There’s a lot of benefit to using technologies like propane — fuels like propane autogas — to reduce those emissions so that we’re lowering its impact and protecting our lung health,” Arnold said.
Driver-Approved Experience
School bus drivers are on the front lines of student transportation. They know what makes a bus safe, reliable, and comfortable for themselves and for their passengers. And they know how propane autogas buses deliver on those benefits every day.
Drivers across the country consistently report that propane autogas buses provide a smoother ride with stronger acceleration than diesel, which is a major improvement in stop-and-go traffic. The buses are also quieter than diesel, so drivers can better hear activity inside the bus for improved safety.
Most importantly, drivers say they can instantly notice the difference in the smell of a propane autogas bus compared with diesel. With propane autogas, there’s no odor, no fumes, and no more headaches from harmful emissions. It’s why veteran drivers like Dawn Tiemann of Henrico County Public Schools in Virginia firmly believe in the benefit of propane autogas buses.
“There’s no smell, no fumes — nothing for the children to smell,” she said. “It’s so quiet, sometimes I have to ask myself, did I even start the bus?”
For transportation directors, that driver satisfaction can translate into stronger staff retention and more consistent operations, especially at a time when many districts are facing staffing shortages.
Savings That Help the Budget Go Further
Click to download flyer.
Students and drivers aren’t the only ones benefiting from propane autogas buses. Transportation directors are seeing the impact where it matters most: in their budgets. Propane autogas school buses provide the lowest total cost of ownership thanks to reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Most districts report up to 50 percent savings on fuel costs alone compared with diesel. Those savings quickly add up and can be reinvested into other important areas like classrooms, driver pay, or fleet expansion.
Amy Rosa, director of school safety and transportation at Wa-Nee Community School Corporation in Indiana, has seen the value firsthand. Her district operates a mixed fleet that includes 25 propane buses.
“I was excited about buying buses for less money and realizing that the overall cost of ownership was going to be significantly lower,” Rosa shared during the STN webinar.
Those savings aren’t just theoretical. They’ve helped Wa-Nee keep extracurricular travel free for students.
“We offer all of our extracurriculars at no cost to students, so they don’t have to pay for travel,” Rosa said. “Every year we save money so that our kids can continue in sports and music programs with no fees there. That’s our goal. To save money for our students and our taxpayers.”
A Proven Solution That’s Working Today
While some school districts are waiting for the next wave of clean technology to arrive — and delaying significant emissions reductions in the process — others are already leading the way with propane autogas. Across the country, school transportation leaders are proving that a smarter, cleaner fleet doesn’t have to be years away. It can start now.
Reading Time: 6minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu struck a compromise to spend $1.8 billion in surplus state funds on tax rebates, special education funding and lower property taxes. The state Senate rejected the proposal Wednesday night.
The rejection leaves the money on the table for the next governor and Legislature to use in the next biennial budget, raising the stakes for who wins the November election.
Lead Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and several of the Democratic contenders slammed the proposal, though Democrat Missy Hughes criticized her opponents for opposing it.
A bipartisan deal struck between Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders to spend $1.8 billion of Wisconsin’s projected budget surplus failed in the Senate late Wednesday night after days of criticism that put both Evers and GOP leaders at odds with members of their own parties.
The fallout has become a blame game over who is responsible for the deal’s failure:
Republicans blamed Democrats for not being willing to provide assistance to Wisconsinites.
Senate Democrats blamed Republicans and Evers for not involving them in negotiations and described the bill as “reckless” and “irresponsible” spending.
Several Assembly Democrats criticized the deal for not providing long-term structural changes to education funding or property taxes.
Evers blamed both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the likely GOP gubernatorial nominee in the governor’s race.
Tiffany called the proposal a “backroom relief deal” that “fails to deliver lasting relief to Wisconsin taxpayers.”
The Democratic gubernatorial candidates split on whether the bill was a good idea.
The underlying reason for all of the statements, social media posts and comments debating the surplus spending is that future control of the Capitol hangs in the balance come November, said Anthony Chergosky, an associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.
“It’s very interesting that this agreement was struck by three politicians who will not be in office this time next year, when the upcoming budget process is taking place,” Chergosky said. “There are a lot of people involved in the politics of this agreement who will be around potentially and are kind of wondering about the wisdom of three lame-duck members of state government striking a significant deal that will have potential ripple effects, whether they be positive or negative.”
Evers, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, who are not seeking reelection this year, announced the deal on Monday. It followed months of negotiations that began after state leaders learned of the projected surplus in January. The nearly $2.4 billion surplus far exceeded projections made last year as lawmakers crafted the state’s 2025-27 budget.
The deal would have directed over $300 million to Wisconsin school districts through special education reimbursement, another $300 million for school districts to lower property taxes and $870 million through income tax rebates for those who filed state income taxes in 2024. It also would have permanently eliminated state income taxes on tips and overtime wages, which Evers vetoed in Republican-led bills in April.
Here are a few lessons we learned from the failed surplus deal debate.
Democrats are increasingly splitting with Evers
Not too long ago, legislative Democrats had to be ready to defend Evers’ vetoes from Republican overrides.
This week, all 15 Senate Democrats and 32 in the Assembly broke with the two-term governor on the surplus deal. Ten Assembly Democrats, including several running in close districts this fall, voted with Republicans to pass the bill in the Assembly.
In statements and comments, many looped Evers in with Vos and LeMahieu as lame-duck elected officials leaving the Capitol in the coming months.
Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, left, and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, right, speak during a Republican press conference on June 8, 2023, in the Wisconsin State Capitol building in Madison, Wis. (Drake White-Bergey / Wisconsin Watch)
“This is a completely reckless proposal stitched together in a backroom deal by three people who will not be running around and won’t be here when the consequences of a multibillion-dollar deficit comes home to roost,” Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton, said ahead of the Senate vote. “It’s simply something I can’t support.”
Even the majority of the seven top Democratic candidates for governor criticized the deal. Only Missy Hughes, the former CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., directly supported the surplus spending plan.
“@GovEvers bargain with the GOP is bad for Wisconsin,” Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state Rep. Francesca Hong, D-Madison, said in a social media post this week explaining her no vote. “This backroom deal is a payday loan taken out at the expense of our children, our infrastructure, our economy, and our future.”
Evers this week did not hesitate to return criticism to the lawmakers of his party. He told CBS58 that Democrats calling the bill irresponsible was “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”
“Wisconsin’s kids and schools aren’t going to get the investments they desperately need this year because Tom Tiffany and a few Republican and Democratic lawmakers chose to blow up a bipartisan plan to invest in our K-12 schools, lower property taxes, and help working families afford rising costs, all because they’d rather do what’s best for the next election than what’s right for the people of our state,” Evers said in a statement immediately after the Senate vote. “So many Wisconsinites feel left behind, frustrated, and disillusioned by politics these days because they think a lot of politicians in the Capitol are only here to serve themselves. And, today, they’re right.”
The debate over the surplus deal saw legislative Republicans defending Evers against criticism from Democratic lawmakers. Several thanked Evers for being willing to compromise and work with Republicans.
“You’re going to hear from my Democratic colleagues that they want to save the money because they want to invest it in growing the size of government. That’s what they’re going to say, even though they might not use those words, we know the truth. We want to give it back. Some Democrats want to keep it,” Vos said on the Assembly floor. “Luckily, Tony Evers isn’t one of those. He actually had the ability to say, let’s compromise, let’s each give, let’s find a consensus, because the people of Wisconsin expect us to do better than to just stand up and shake our fist.”
Lawmakers are reflected in the marble wall as Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers delivers his final State of the State address at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Feb. 17, 2026, in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
On the other hand, many Democratic lawmakers urged caution against approving the spending for the projected surplus when there are economic uncertainties at the federal level.
Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, who is running for governor, said she was “shocked” to agree with Tiffany and state Sen. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, a hard-line fiscal conservative, in their criticism of the deal.
“This is a deal that does not help us fix the significant long-term structural problems we have, namely the way we have robbed our children of their futures in defunding public education,” she said during the Joint Finance Committee meeting Tuesday.
Nass, who is not seeking reelection, was one of three Republicans who sided with Senate Democrats on Wednesday in opposing the deal. Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, and Sen. Rob Hutton, R-Brookfield, also voted against it.
Nass asked Senate Republicans to reject the proposal for concerns about financial stability.
“I’ve enjoyed standing up for we, the people, especially financially, as I’m doing this evening, and until my final day, I will vote in a way that financially protects those I represent,” Nass said during Wednesday night’s Senate floor debate. “What we’re doing now is mortgaging our future and our children’s future, to some extent, for the temporary convenience of the present. And the only way that can stop is for us to resist it and to vote no.”
The surplus as an election issue
Legislative inaction on the surplus likely means the next governor and whoever holds majorities in the Assembly and the Senate in January will control how that money is or is not spent.
Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, told reporters on Thursday that future election criticism about the deal’s failure should be directed at Republicans.
“Republicans are in the majority, and they failed to get this bill out of the state Senate with their own members,” she said. “That’s something that they’re going to have to answer for, as well as, of course, 16 years of failing to address these issues and creating an affordability crisis.”
Tiffany said if he is elected governor, the surplus funds will “be returned to taxpayers where they belong.”
It’s possible, for the slew of candidates running in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, that this is a turning point in what has otherwise been a quiet campaign so far, Chergosky said.
“This might be the thing that gives the nomination race a little kick in the pants or a little nudge to start getting moving because we are seeing some daylight between the candidates,” Chergosky said.
For example, Hughes, the lone Democratic gubernatorial candidate who directly supported the deal, in a social media post on Thursday criticized Tiffany but slammed, without naming names, “certain self-serving Democratic candidates for governor who would rather boost their own personal political ambitions than serve our kids and taxpayers.”
“Imagine if those candidates had acted like the leaders they profess to be. Imagine if they had paused before sending press releases and Twitter threads and jumping to name calling. Imagine if they had set aside their bruised egos and leaned in,” Hughes said. “Ultimately, they could still have voted no or opposed the bill, but they never even gave it due diligence. That’s not leadership, that’s gamesmanship. These Democratic candidates exposed themselves for lacking the maturity and responsibility a governor must have if they are to move our entire state forward.”
Former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes said the deal delivered “meaningful dollars” to schools, but did not fix the state’s “broken system” to help working people.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Joel Brennan, the former Department of Administration secretary under Evers, criticized the deal negotiations for not being done in public.
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said “a one-year property tax break is not a long-term affordability plan.”
Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez called the deal “a compromise that’s far from perfect.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
After months of negotiation, Gov. Tony Evers and Republican leaders in the Legislature said Monday they’ve reached a deal that would spend down the state’s budget surplus on tax relief and education.
The roughly $1.9 billion deal, which is expected to go before lawmakers for a vote this week, includes $850 million in direct payments to taxpayers and the elimination of state income tax for overtime pay and tipped earnings. It would also boost spending on K-12 education by $600 million.
That school funding figure is split between general school aid and increasing the state’s special education reimbursement rate, which has been a point of contention from Evers’ team since the passage last summer of the two-year state budget. Since that time, higher-than-expected costs of special education lowered the total amount received by school districts from the state.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Evers touted the deal as a win for schools, with compromises for Republican tax priorities.
“Money for schools is obviously the most important thing for me,” Evers said. “We’re in a position to actually compromise and have Republicans and Democrats — at least at the leadership level — getting something done.”
That comment alludes to some fracturing within the parties themselves, with several lawmakers putting out immediate statements condemning the deal. But Evers expressed confidence that a majority of lawmakers would vote to approve the plan.
In separate statements, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said the deal would put the state’s surplus toward tax relief.
“We’re sending (the surplus) back to help families with the pressure of increasing costs, reward hard work, and to continue investing in schools to help stabilize rising property taxes,” said Vos.
Evers’ office said that the direct payment checks, which would total $600 per married couple or $300 per individual, would be mailed out by November. Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback called that provision a central priority for Senate Republicans during negotiations. The governor’s office says 3 million people are expected to receive those checks, for a total cost to the state of about $850 million.
“This deal will provide immediate relief with $600 in surplus refund payments and provide permanent property and income tax relief for Wisconsin families,” said LeMahieu in his statement.
While the state Legislature has adjourned for the year, both the Senate and Assembly would need to pass this deal for it to become law. That means that a special session of the Legislature will be called. According to the governor’s office, that path will be expedited, with the Legislature’s budget committee expected to move it forward on Tuesday, and the full Legislature set to debate it as early as Wednesday.
Login
