Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Windsor board gives staff go‑ahead to pursue district vehicles for transition program to lower $100,000 annual transport bill
Summary
After staff presented options, the board agreed in principle to pursue purchasing or leasing two wheelchair‑accessible activity buses to support the transition (ages 18–22) special‑education program, aiming to cut roughly $100,000 a year in contracted transportation costs. Staff will return with firm financing and procurement details.
The East Windsor Board of Education on Jan. 14 directed staff to move forward with detailed planning to acquire two smaller activity buses to support the district’s transition program for students ages 18 to 22.
Superintendent Patrick told the board the district currently spends roughly $100,000 a year on contracted transportation for the transition program, including summer services, and that that figure has been rising. “What we would like to do or pursue is purchasing our own vehicles to support that program,” he said, describing either five‑year leases or financing as the likely paths and noting vendor lead times of roughly six months for customized wheelchair‑capable vehicles.
Staff presented a vendor quote of about $111,900 per vehicle and lease figures near $18,200 per year per vehicle (five‑year term); staff estimated the district’s current annual contract cost is roughly $100,000 when summer programming is included and described a clear opportunity to reduce recurring vendor expenses. The administration emphasized they are looking at white activity buses (14‑seat, wheelchair‑capable) that have fewer regulatory restrictions for community‑based stops than full yellow school buses. Patrick said the district already has licensed drivers on staff and that insurance and maintenance plans are feasible under existing contracts.
Board members pressed for more detail on lease-versus‑purchase economics, insurance and workers‑comp implications, mileage limits in lease contracts, service plans and state procurement requirements when town capital assets are involved. Board members and staff discussed procurement logistics: capital items would be held by the town, and state vendor lists can shorten the procurement timeline if vehicles are available on the state contract.
The board did not vote to buy vehicles at the meeting but gave general consensus for staff to continue pursuing quotes and firm financing/lease proposals, then return with a final recommendation and numbers. Staff said they would present a formal purchase/lease proposal and financing details in a subsequent meeting so the board could act in time to meet vendor production timelines for the next school year.
If the board ultimately approves purchase or lease, staff said the vehicles would be dedicated first to transition‑program needs and could be available for nonconflicting uses (for example, student leadership trips) when not required by the program.
The board asked staff to report back with firm cost comparisons (lease vs. buy), expected annual net savings, insurance cost estimates and a recommended procurement path (state contract vs. competitive bids). The board also requested an implementation timeline that shows when vehicles would be operational relative to the vendor’s lead time.
