BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 497
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Vidak |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 8, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: April 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Pupil transportation: data
SUMMARY
This bill would require the California Department of Education
(CDE) to collect and post online pupil transportation data.
BACKGROUND
Current law 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. Additionally, current law requires
school districts to provide transportation services for special
education students whose individualized education programs
require such services.
(Education Code § 39800 and § 41850 et. seq.)
Federal law requires local educational agencies to transport the
following three groups of students: students with disabilities;
students attending federally sanctioned schools; and homeless
students.
In 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted,
which replaced almost all sources of state funding, including
revenue limits and most of the 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
SB 497 (Vidak) Page 2
of ?
language learners, or foster youth. However, one categorical
program not rolled into the LCFF was 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 (COLAs). Further, state law
continues to require that districts spend HTST funding on pupil
transportation.
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE),
commencing with data for the 2014-15 fiscal year and
annually thereafter, to request pupil transportation data
from each school district, charter school, county office of
education, joint powers authority, and regional
occupational center or program that provides pupil
transportation.
2. Specifies that the provision of the transportation data to
the California Department of Education (CDE) is voluntary
on the part of these entities.
3. Requires the data to include, but is not limited to, totals
from each entity for all of the following:
A. Revenue received for transportation purposes.
B. Number of buses.
C. Ridership of all pupils.
D. Ridership of pupils with an individualized
education program (IEP).
E. Ridership of pupils who are eligible for free or
reduced-price meals.
F. Number of miles driven.
SB 497 (Vidak) Page 3
of ?
G. Approved costs.
H. Cost per mile.
I. Cost per pupil.
4. Requires the CDE to annually post the data collected on its
website along with the statewide average cost per mile and
the statewide average cost per pupil.
5. Requires that the data posted on the website shall be
separated between home-to-school transportation and special
education transportation, as specified.
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Need for the bill. According to the author's office,
school transportation data has been collected since the
start of the Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) program
when it reimbursed local educational agencies (LEAs) at 100
percent of their costs. The data was used by the state as
maintenance of effort to follow up on the school
transportation reimbursement. In 1982-83, reimbursement
for the HTST program was frozen and reduced by 20 percent.
The state continued to use the data to adjust the
maintenance of effort appropriations and reduce
reimbursements if districts spent less money on
transportation. The data was last collected in 2012-13 and
is no longer collected due to the HTST program allocation
being rolled in the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) as
an add-on to the base grant of LEAs. The author's office
indicates that agencies, including the CDE and the Fiscal
Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), and LEAs
need this data for administrative purposes, including the
ability to compare their efficiency levels with other LEAs.
2. 2014 Budget Act. The 2014 Budget Act provides
approximately $496 million in Proposition 98 General Fund
for the Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) program, which
includes both allocations for home-to-school transportation
and allocations for some pupils with disabilities,
specifically "severely disabled and orthopedically
impaired" pupils.
SB 497 (Vidak) Page 4
of ?
3. Legislative Analyst Office Report (LAO). 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 Local Control
Funding Formula (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.
4. Problems with the existing program are not new. The Bureau
of State Audits (BSA) released a report on the HTST program
in 2007, acknowledging many problems with the existing
program funding formula. Some of the findings include:
A. 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.
B. Allocation increases are not always consistent
SB 497 (Vidak) Page 5
of ?
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.
C. 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.
5. Related and prior legislation
RELATED LEGISLATION
SB 191 (Block) would provide for school districts to be
funded at a minimum of 50 percent of approved
transportation costs by the 2021-22 fiscal year, thereby
providing equalization funding for school districts that
are reimbursed at less than 50 percent. The equalization
adjustments would occur over a seven-year period beginning
in 2015-16. SB 191 passed this Committee on March 18, 2015
and is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
PRIOR LEGISLATION
SB 1137 (Torres, 2014) nearly identical to SB 191, would
have provided for school districts to be funded at a
minimum of 50 percent of approved transportation costs by
the 2020-21 fiscal year. SB 1137 passed this Committee on
April 9, 2014 but failed passage in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
SB 1166 (Vidak, 2014) would have required school districts
to receive state reimbursement for the full cost of
home-to-school transportation of pupils through an
appropriation in the annual Budget Act. SB 1166 failed
passage in this Committee on April 9, 2014.
SUPPORT
California Association of School Business Officials
SB 497 (Vidak) Page 6
of ?
California Association of School Transportation Officials
School Transportation Coalition
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --