Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forney ISD board declares Senate Bill 546 compliance financially infeasible for now, approves exemption
Summary
After administrators estimated retrofitting spare buses with three-point harnesses would cost more than $1 million and no state funding was provided, the Forney ISD Board voted to determine an exemption under Senate Bill 546, citing budget constraints and transitioning older buses to a spare fleet.
The Forney Independent School District Board of Trustees voted to determine that requiring three-point seat belts on the district's older buses under Senate Bill 546 is not financially feasible at this time, and approved seeking the statutory exemption.
Mr. Pierce briefed the board on Senate Bill 546, saying, “Senate Bill 546 mandates that all school buses be equipped with threepoint seat belts by September 2029.” He reported the district’s newer buses (purchased since 2018) already include three-point harnesses and older buses are being moved into the spare fleet. Virtual retrofitting of the spare buses was estimated in the presentation at "over $1 million," and administration said the state had not provided additional funding for the requirement.
Administration recommended the board find a "just cause" exemption exists because the necessary funds are not allocated in the current budget and retrofitting would be a substantial one-time cost. President Greg Ferris moved the resolution that the district's budget does not permit retrofitting buses with the required seat belts; Miss Bhoff seconded the motion. The board approved the motion by voice vote.
Trustees said the district will continue to replace older buses over time with vehicles that include three-point harnesses, and in the interim will keep non‑compliant buses in the spare pool. The board did not itemize a specific funding plan to complete retrofits, and the administration framed this as a budgetary exemption rather than a permanent policy change.
Next steps: the superintendent was directed to proceed consistent with the board’s determination and report back on fleet replacement timing and budget implications.
