Rutherford County schools weigh buying buses as contractor insurance dispute threatens routes

Rutherford County Board of Education officials spent the work session debating contingency plans after some private bus contractors said they may not obtain the liability insurance required under a proposed new contract for the 2025–26 school year.

The district’s director of schools, Doctor Sullivan, told the board she must prepare options in case contractors decline the contract or cannot provide required insurance and drivers. “I have to provide the board options,” Doctor Sullivan said.

School staff described three paths: (1) contractors obtain individual liability insurance certificates and continue to operate under the renewed contract (the administration recommended this as the immediate path); (2) the county risk office secures a county-level policy and the board later amends contractor rates to reflect any cost differences; or (3) the school system buys a limited number of buses itself to operate routes the contractors will not cover. Transportation staff said bus vendors were offering 90-passenger buses in the $166,000–$179,000 range and that vendors were holding vehicles through early June if the district wanted to purchase them.

The board’s discussion ranged from procedural questions about contract timing to policy and budget concerns. Board member Miss Darby summarized a common concern: “I don’t feel comfortable making this decision without knowing, like, what are those 50 buses going to cost if we do them ourselves?” Several members urged staff to prepare a clear financial comparison of buying and operating buses versus other contingency steps.

Transportation director Trey Lee (staff) told the board that contractors will need insurance certificates by July 1 if they expect to operate next year and that contractors must provide drivers and bus information when they sign. “They’ll have to have all their ducks in a row when they get ready to sign their contract,” Lee said. Staff and the county finance office also flagged a narrow timing window: county procedures mean checks to cover insurance stipends or other county funds likely must be processed in late June to reach contractors before July.

Board members asked for a short, actionable decision timeline. Staff recommended a May 29 deadline for contractors to sign the new contract so insurance paperwork could be collected in time; the board will be asked to vote on the contract at the next meeting. Several members urged an ad hoc study of operational costs if the district were to own and operate buses; Director Sullivan said she would provide options and a preliminary budget analysis by the Thursday meeting.

The debate also covered secondary issues: whether activity buses (buses used for after-school events) could be repurposed for routes, where purchased buses would be parked and maintained, and whether contractors who sell buses to the district could be hired as district employees. Attorney and purchasing staff explained that buying used buses would require appraisals and adherence to Tennessee procurement rules discussed during the session.

No formal action was taken at the work session; staff were directed to return detailed cost comparisons and implementation plans and the board signaled it will vote on a contract and any related purchases at the next business meeting.

Ending: The board and staff said they will try to finalize contractor agreements and, if necessary, a fallback plan in the coming weeks. Staff emphasized that any purchase or county insurance effort would require additional budget work and coordination with the county finance office.