LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 29, 1997
TO: Honorable Paul Sadler, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 517, As Engrossed
Committee on Public Education By: Bivins
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB517 ( Relating
to the transportation of public school students.) this office
has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB517-As Engrossed
No fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The probable fiscal implications to units of local government
are described below:
Bill Summary
This bill would permit
local school districts to use passenger vans for the transportation
of 14 or fewer students in connection with school activities
other than school bus routes to and from school. The bill would
also permit the use of motor buses (in addition to school buses)
for the transportation of 15 or more students in the same school-related
conditions. These school or motor buses would no longer be
required to be chartered from motor bus companies or district
owned (they could be rented or leased). The bill defines "passenger
car," "passenger van," and "motor bus" (which is a commercial
motor vehicle) for purposes of Section 34.003, Education Code.
It
should be noted that federal laws and regulations governed by
the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration prohibit
the sale of new passenger vans for the purpose of transporting
students, but there is no federal law prohibiting the use of
such vehicles acquired for a different purpose (such as transportation
of faculty).
The legislation would take effect for the 1997-98
school year.
Administrative Costs to Local Government
It
is possible that school districts could lower operating costs,
particularly for the amortized cost of the vehicle, if passenger
vans and motor buses were used under the conditions stipulated
in the bill. The state Foundation School Program funds approximately
48% of total public school transportation costs, but the state
reimbursement rate does not depend on the type of vehicle in
which students are transported. Any cost savings would therefore
be realized exclusively by local districts.
It is difficult
to predict the actual cost savings for several reasons: (1)
The precise configuration of routes is not known, nor are the
corresponding operating costs. The state has no data on the
number of extra-curricular or co-curricular routes which could
be served by passenger vans and motor buses under the conditions
of this bill. (2) Section 34.003 (a) permits the use of "passenger
cars" on routes with fewer than 10 students, further limiting
the desirable use of passenger vans. (3) The bill's cost-saving
potential is curtailed by the federal laws referenced above.
Dealers may be reluctant to sell new passenger vans to school
districts.
For the 1993-94 school year, fuel and related
"supply" costs totaled $62 million and capital outlay (bus fleet
depreciation) totaled $58 million (LBB data). A standard 15-passenger
van has a cost advantage over a standard 71 passenger bus of
approximately $15,000 ($25,000 vs. $40,000) and a fuel efficiency
advantage of 50 to 200 percent (15 m.p.g. vs. 5-10 m.p.g.).
Considering only these two factors, it is assumed that districts
that exercise the option to operate passenger vans on extra-curricular
and co-curricular excursions would realize average cost savings
of 1 to 5 percent. This would represent a total statewide savings
to local districts ranging from $1.2 to $6 million. The use
of motor buses on extra-curricular and co-curricular excursions
is not anticipated to produce a significant cost savings.
The
fiscal implications described above would be likely to continue
beyond 2002.
Source: Agencies: 701 Texas Education Agency - Administration
LBB Staff: JK ,DH ,LP ,GJ