New York Assembly Bill A00450

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Eliminates the requirement that when the board of education enters into a piggyback contract with another school district that transports students pursuant to a contract with a private transportation contractor, the board finds that the entry into the piggyback contract will result in a cost savings to the school district.

Summary

This bill amends the Education Law to expand and clarify when a school district board of education may enter into a “piggyback” student transportation contract. Under current law, a board may do so only if it determines both that the contract price is appropriate and that the arrangement will produce cost savings for the district. The bill removes the explicit cost-savings finding requirement, while retaining the requirement that the board determine the contract cost is appropriate. The bill also revises the definition of a piggyback contract. It would allow one school district to use a transportation arrangement already in place for another district to serve students traveling to the same or nearby locations, so long as the private transportation contractor and each participating district enter into the contract and the service follows the terms and conditions of the existing transportation contract. The measure is titled the “school bus route efficiency act” and is intended to make it easier for districts to share transportation arrangements.

Impact

The bill would amend section 305 of the Education Law, loosening a procedural condition on school transportation contracting and broadening the statutory definition of piggyback contracts. In practical terms, school boards would have more flexibility to join existing private bus transportation arrangements without having to formally document that the new contract will save money, though they would still need to find the price appropriate. The change could affect school districts, private school bus contractors, and students who rely on district transportation services, especially where districts serve overlapping or nearby routes.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded debate, so there is no documented public sentiment from the legislative process in the materials provided. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as an efficiency and administrative flexibility proposal rather than a controversial policy change. Its stated purpose suggests support for reducing barriers to shared transportation contracting among school districts.

Contention

The main point of contention reflected in the bill itself is the removal of the requirement that a board find the piggyback contract will result in cost savings. Supporters would likely view that requirement as an unnecessary hurdle that can prevent districts from taking advantage of efficient shared routes, while opponents could argue that eliminating the savings test weakens fiscal safeguards and may allow districts to enter contracts without a clear financial benefit. Another possible issue is the expanded ability to rely on another district’s existing private transportation contract, which could raise concerns about oversight, contract fairness, and how route sharing affects local control.