Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plano ISD: Senate Bill 546 compliance could cost about $16.1M; district calls requirement an unfunded mandate
Summary
Deputy Superintendent Johnny Hill told trustees the district has 314 buses (216 with three‑point belts, 19 with two‑point, 79 with none) and estimated replacement cost at about $164,000 per conventional bus; staff estimated full replacement of the affected 98 buses would cost roughly $16.1 million and retrofitting roughly $6.6 million, and described the state requirement as an unfunded mandate.
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deputy Superintendent Johnny Hill briefed the board on the implications of Senate Bill 546, which requires three‑point seat belts on school buses and calls for a TEA study due by the end of May and full compliance by Sept. 1, 2029. Hill described the reporting obligations and the district’s current fleet: "You can see that we have a total of 3 14 buses and we have currently 2 16 of those 3 14 that have 3 point seat belts," he said, and later added there are 79 buses with no seat belts and 19 with two‑point belts.
Hill provided cost estimates: a new conventional bus is about $164,000 (electric buses are roughly $350,000) and retrofitting existing buses was presented as a range in the presentation; district staff estimated replacing the approximately 98 affected buses would be just over $16,100,000 and that retrofitting could be about $6,600,000 depending on bus condition and required floor/work modifications. Hill described the requirement as an "unfunded mandate," noting TEA’s statewide data collection may prompt legislative or funding responses and that, in many districts, replacement of older buses over time will move fleets toward compliance.
Trustees asked whether the state would provide funds; Hill said no dedicated statewide funding has been provided and the district will include the TEA responses in its May submission. Board discussion emphasized timing and fiscal implications; no binding action was taken at this meeting.
