Tunkhannock Area SD board to recommend phased mileage increase for bus contractors, set camera requirements

TUNKHANNOCK, Pa. — Tunkhannock Area School District administrators told the school board at a special meeting that they will recommend phasing in higher mileage reimbursement for transportation contractors — moving from the state formula of 23¢ per mile toward 28¢, then 29¢ and 30¢ over successive years — and will require working bus cameras with readable storage as a condition of contracts.

The recommendation matters because it would increase local spending on transportation while shifting some equipment responsibilities to contractors and tightening contract language on cameras and fuel handling. Administrators said they will include the proposal in the district’s preliminary budget next month for the board to consider.

Superintendent: "I firmly support the need to examine transportation contractor compensation," the superintendent said, noting the district has not changed the state reimbursement formula in more than 50 years and that cost pressures will make next year’s budget challenging.

Administrators and the transportation committee presented cost models during the meeting. Committee speaker Chuck said a district-wide mileage rate of 28¢ per mile would increase the district’s transportation budget on the current fleet by about $170,247.31; moving to 29¢ would increase costs to about $204,448.24, according to figures presented at the meeting. Staff also ran a model that assumed eliminating five buses; that scenario lowered the first-year net increase to roughly $147,000 under a 28¢ rate, producing estimated first-year savings of about $22,000 compared with keeping the current fleet while raising the mileage rate.

Board members and administrators discussed options for phasing the increase to lessen the immediate budgetary impact — a plan several board members endorsed at the meeting — and asked staff to draft contract language requiring working cameras and readable storage media on buses. Administrators said many buses already have district-owned ProVision cameras; where cameras exist and are working, the district would not remove them. Karen, the staff member managing camera logistics, said the district ordered a bulk supply of compatible SD cards to reduce compatibility problems with existing ProVision systems (88 cards on order).

A public commenter who identified himself as a contractor warned that shifting camera purchase or maintenance costs to contractors could negate any pay increase. "If you're saying that you're gonna give us 28¢, and now we have to put cameras in all our vehicles, I don't think that's gonna pan out," the contractor said, adding that quoted prices for equipment could run into thousands of dollars per bus.

Administrators told the board they will recommend keeping district control of radios because those devices use the district’s FCC license, while allowing contractors to seek tax-exempt status for fuel purchases so they can buy fuel at lower cost. The administration repeated that any change to mileage reimbursements above the state formula would be paid from local funds: "All that is on local taxpayers' dime because that is above the formula from the state," a board member observed; staff confirmed the current state rate in the formula is 23¢ per mile.

The board did not take a formal vote at the special meeting. Instead, members signaled agreement on several recommendations — phasing in mileage increases (28¢ then 29¢ then 30¢), including working-camera requirements in contracts, and directing staff to study route efficiency — and asked that the administration include the proposed increases and related contract language in the preliminary budget to be presented next month. Staff said final routing and exact costs depend on next year’s kindergarten and overall enrollment figures; the superintendent reported current district enrollment of 1,964 and noted continuing declines in recent years.

Next steps: District staff will add the phased mileage proposal and camera/contract language to the preliminary 2025–26 budget materials for the board’s consideration at the next business meeting. If the board chooses to proceed, it will vote on any budget changes and contract amendments at a subsequent meeting.