BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 191|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 191
Author: Block (D) and Vidak (R), et al.
Amended: 6/2/15
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 3/18/15
AYES: Liu, Huff, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
SUBJECT: School transportation: apportionments
SOURCE: California School Boards Association
DIGEST: This bill provides for school districts to be funded
at a minimum of 50% of approved transportation costs by the
2021-22 fiscal year, thereby providing equalization funding for
these school districts. In addition, this bill requires that
school transportation funding receive an annual cost-of-living
adjustment from the 2015-16 fiscal year through the 2021-22
fiscal year.
ANALYSIS: Existing federal law requires local educational
agencies to transport the following three groups of students:
1)Students with disabilities;
2)Students attending federally sanctioned schools; and
3)Homeless students.
Existing state law:
SB 191
Page 2
1)Authorizes school districts and county offices of education to
provide transportation services to regular education students
attending their schools at the discretion of their governing
board.
2)Requires school districts to provide transportation services
for special education students whose individualized education
programs require such services.
This bill:
1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for the
2015-16 through 2021-22 fiscal years, to apportion to each
school district, county office of education, entity providing
services under a joint powers agreement, or regional
occupational center or program that provides pupil
transportation services either 100% of its school
transportation apportionment for the 2014-15 fiscal year, as
adjusted for a cost-of-living-adjustment; or the following
amount, whichever is greater:
a) For the 2015-16 fiscal year, 41% of its approved
transportation costs for the prior fiscal year.
b) For the 2016-17 fiscal year, 42.5% of its approved
transportation costs for the prior fiscal year.
c) For the 2017-18 fiscal year, 44% of its approved
transportation costs for the prior fiscal year.
d) For the 2018-19 fiscal year, 45.5% of its approved
transportation costs for the prior fiscal year.
e) For the 2019-20 fiscal year, 47% of its approved
transportation costs for the prior fiscal year.
f) For the 2020-21 fiscal year, 48.5% of its approved
transportation costs for the prior fiscal year.
g) For the 2021-22 fiscal year, 50% of its approved
transportation costs for the prior fiscal year.
1)Requires for the 2013-14 fiscal year that the school
transportation apportionment amount described above shall be
adjusted by the percentage change in the annual average value
SB 191
Page 3
of the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government
Purchases of Goods and Services for the United States, as
published by the United States Department of Commerce for the
12-month period ending in the third quarter of the prior
fiscal year. This percentage change shall be determined using
the latest data available as of May 10 of the preceding fiscal
year compared with the annual average value of the same
deflator for the 12-month period ending in the third quarter
of the second preceding fiscal year, using the latest data
available as of May 10 of the preceding fiscal year, as
reported by the Department of Finance.
2)Provides that implementation of its provisions is subject to
an appropriation made for these purposes in the annual Budget
Act or another statute.
Background
In 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted.
The LCFF replaces almost all sources of state funding, including
most categorical programs. The LCFF establishes a per-pupil
funding target that is adjusted for differences in grade level,
but otherwise is uniform across the state. The LCFF also
provides supplemental funding for districts that serve students
who are low-income, English language learners, or foster youth.
However, one categorical program not rolled into the LCFF is the
Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) program. This program
retained its separate funding stream; such that any district
that received HTST funding in 2012-13 continues to receive that
same amount of funding in addition to its LCFF allocation each
year. However, the HTST, unlike in prior years, would not be
eligible for future cost-of-living adjustments. State law also
continues to require that districts spend HTST funding on pupil
transportation.
Comments
Need for the bill. According to the author's office, the HTST
program has long been inequitable and in need of improvement
where the current statewide average reimbursement rate is 35% of
approved costs. The funding distribution is so uneven that some
school districts see less than 10% reimbursement, while others
receive over 80% of their approved costs. Based on data from
SB 191
Page 4
the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) report on the HTST
program in 2014, school districts spent over $1.4 billion
transporting students but received less than $492 million from
the state to pay these costs resulting in encroachment on
general purpose revenues that would otherwise go into
instructional programs. This funding deficit is an unequal
burden that hits rural and growing school districts much harder
than more densely populated and flat enrollment school
districts.
LAO report. In 2013, the LAO was requested to consider new
approaches that could address historical inequities and include
incentives for efficient and effective pupil transportation
services. The report was issued February 2014 and included a
description and assessment of three options:
1)Funding pupil transportation services within the new LCFF,
2)Creating a new, targeted program to help districts facing
extraordinarily high transportation costs, and
3)Creating a broad-based program whereby the state pays a share
of each district's transportation costs.
To assist the Legislature's deliberations, the LAO identified
three options for funding pupil transportation moving forward.
The options primarily differ in the degree to which they account
for transportation costs separately from the other costs
districts face. These three options are to:
1)Fund transportation costs within the LCFF;
2)Fund only extraordinary transportation costs; or
3)Fund a share of all transportation costs.
Although the basic approach for each option differs, all contain
some key advantages. Most notably, all three options provide a
means to phase out the use of allocations linked to historical
factors and apply the same funding rules to all local education
agencies, addressing key problems with the state's existing
approach. In addition, all of the options would encourage
efficiency by requiring local budgets to cover a notable share
of total costs. Finally, all three options would be relatively
simple to implement and easy for districts and the public to
understand.
SB 191
Page 5
Bureau of State Audits report. The Bureau of State Audits
released a report on the HTST program in 2007, acknowledging
many problems with the existing program funding formula. Some
of the findings include:
1)The current funding mechanism prevents some school districts
that did not receive HTST program funds in the immediately
preceding fiscal year from receiving these funds because of
the basis of allocation.
2)Allocation increases are not always consistent with student
population growth. Some school districts have experienced
dramatic increases in student population over the years;
however, their allocations have not always increased at the
same rate.
3)Most school districts had to use other funding sources to pay
for some transportation costs and many reported it had varying
levels of fiscal impact on other programs.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, creating a
state minimum "share of cost" approach for school transportation
funding, while holding harmless, and providing a cost-of-living
adjustment for, districts that receive allocations above the
minimum, will substantially increase annual state General Fund
contributions to school transportation. Additionally, the
estimated General Fund cost increases would be in the range of
$150 - $160 million in 2015-16. These annual costs would
increase each year to approximately $250 - $270 million by
2021-22. Actual costs are unknown, and would depend upon
cost-of-living adjustment rates and the amount that school
districts spend on transportation costs each year.
SUPPORT: (Verified 6/1/15)
California School Boards Association (source)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Antelope Valley Schools Transportation Agency
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of School Transportation Officials
SB 191
Page 6
California Association of Suburban School Districts
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Central Valley Education Coalition
Elk Grove Unified School District
Forestville Union School District
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Lemoore Union High School District
Marin County Office of Education
Merced Union High School District
Mid-Placer Public Schools Transportation Agency
Pajaro Valley Unified School District
Riverdale Joint Unified School District
Rural County Representatives of California
San Jose Unified School District
School Transportation Coalition
Small School Districts' Association
Southwest Transportation Agency
Tulare County Office of Education
Tulare Joint Union High School District
West County Transportation
Wilsona School District
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/1/15)
California Charter Schools Association
Prepared by:Lenin Del Castillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105
6/2/15 11:01:30
**** END ****
SB 191
Page 7